1 of 71 FIRSTINFORMATIONREPORT (UnderSection154Cr.P.C.) 1. District: Jammu PS: ACB Jammu Year: 2020 FIRNo: RC0042020A0012 Date: 21/11/2020 2 Acts&Sections: Acts Sections R/WSection J&KPCAct,Samvat 2006 5(1)(d) Section5(2)ofJ&KPCAct,Samvat 2006 J&KPenalCode (RanbirPenalCode) 120 B Section5(1)(d)r/w5(2)ofJ&KPCAct,Samvat 2006andr/wsection17ofJ&K StateLands(vestingofownershiptotheoccupants)Act,2001 3. Suspectedoffences: CriminalConspiracy,CriminalMisconduct (a) Occurrenceofoffence: Day: TimePeriod: FromDate: ToDate: (b) InformationReceivedatPS: Date: (c) GeneralDiaryReference: EntryNo.: 02 Date: 21/11/2020 Time: 13:40:12 4. TypeofInformation: Others 5. PlaceofOccurrence: Jammu (a) Direction&distancefromPS: BeatNo.: (b) Address: PlotNo.: Area: City: Pin: State: JammuandKashmir District: Jammu (c) Incase,outsidethelimitofthisPoliceStation,then NameofPS: District: 6. Complainant/Informant: 7. Detailsofknown/suspected/unknownaccusedwithfullparticulars: Accused1 Name: MrHirdeshKumarSingh(01),Designation:thethenDyCommissioner Address: Accused2 Name: MrBashirAhmed(01),Father/Husbandname:MosharDin Address: Accused3 Name: UnknownPublic Servant(s)&PrivatePerson(s) Address: 8. Reasonsfordelayinreportingbythecomplainant/informant: 9 Particularsofpropertiesstolen: ItemName AgeofProperty EstimatedValue(inINR) 10. Totalvalueofpropertystolen:
The aforementionedactsof commissionandomissionon the part of Sh Hirdesh Kumar Singh, the then District Collector Jammu and other Officers / Officials of Revenue Deptt Jammuandbeneficiaries namely Sh Bashir Ahmed S/o Sh Mosher Dinconstitutes offences u/s 5(1) (d), 5(2) of J&KPCAct, 2006, r/w section 17 of J&K States Land (vesting of ownership to the occupants) Act, 2001 and section 120 B RPC. Accordingly,acaseisregisteredinP/SVOJandinvestigationisentrustedtoInspr AshokSinghof P/SVOJ Sr Supdt of Police Vig.Org.Jammu ” Therefore, inpursuance to the directions of Hon’ble HighCourt of J&K, the FIR15/2014of PS VOJ(now ACB) is re registered against Sh Hirdesh Kumar Singh, the then District Collector, Jammu; unknown officers / officials of Revenue Department, Jammu; Sh. Bashir Ahmed S/o Sh. Moshar Din r/o Katal Batal, Tehsil& District Jammu &unknown others, u/s
120 BRPC r/w 5(1)(d)r/w5(2)ofJ&KPCAct,Samvat 2006andr/wsection17ofJ&KStateLands(vestingofownership totheoccupants) Act, 2001 and substantive offences thereof The FIR is entrusted to Shri Jagdeep Singh, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Jammu, for Investigation 13. Actiontaken:Sincetheaboveinformationrevealscommissionofoffence(s)u/sasmentionedatItemNo.2: (1) Registeredthecaseandtookuptheinvestigation: Yes OR (2) Directed NameofIO: JAGDEEPSINGH Rank: INSPECTOR(ACBJammu) No: 103667 totaketheinvestigation OR (3) Refusedinvestigationdueto: OR (4) TransferedToPS: District: onpointofjurisdiction. Attacheddocuments: Documentname Judgement dated 09.10.2020. FIR No 15 of 2014 Case Status FIRreadovertothecomplainant/informant,admittedtobecorrectlyrecordedandacopygiventothecomplainant /informant,freeofcost R.O.A.C.
At para 119(VIII) of the orderdated 09102020, passed in PILNo 19/2011(Prof S K Bhalla Vs State of J&Kand others), the Hon’ble High Court of J&Khas directedthat AntiCorruption Bureau, UT of J&Kshallplace complete records of allmatters regarding land encroachment/ Roshni Act or Rules being enquired into orcases investigated into by it, before the CBIwhich shallproceedwiththefurtherinquiriesandinvestigationsthereininaccordancewithlaw(copyofthesaidorderisenclosed). Inpursuance to the said order, records of the FIR15/2014dated 29052014of PS VOJ (now ACB) have beenreceived from Anti CorruptionBureau,UT ofJ&K
2 of 71 11 InquestReport/UD CaseNo,ifany: 12. Firstinformationcontents:
“
Averification was conducted into the allegations regarding bunglings committed in the implementation of Jammu & Kashmir States Land (vesting of ownership to the occupants) Act 2001 (Roshni Act) During the verification in one of the cases, it has emergedthat inrespect of case file no 911 4of Sh Bashir AhmedS/o Sh Moshar DinR/o KatalBatal, Tehsil& District Jammulandmeasuring63Kanals and15Marlas comprisingin Khasra No 259, 260, 261, 263and264of village katal Batal was ordered for vesting the ownership vide order no DCJ/HQA/Roshni/Agr 2383 84 dated 15102007 by District Collector, Jammu. Pursuant to order passed by District collector, Jammu, the said land was transferred in favour of Shri Basir Ahmed vide mutation No 760 of 2008 under aforementioned Act in Agriculture category Verification conducted has revealed that land measuring 24 Kanals and 04 Marlas has been shown in Khasra Girdawari copy as Ghair Mumkin / Phat (Sharp Sloppy) and remaining land is shownunder cultivationwhereas residentialhouse of the above said beneficiary is also reflected in Khasra No 263 The spot inspection conducted by Vigilance Organisation has unravelled that Khasra Nos 259, 261 &263 measuring 31 Kanals &03 Marlas are under cultivation, land falling under khasra No. 260 min and 264 measuring 34Kanals&04Marlasisnoncultivableandapatchof landmeasuring10Kanalsfallingunder khasrano260minhasnot been showninAKSTatima as per its actualexistingpositiononground.
The landmeasuring31Kanals &03Marlas is under proper cultivation and falls under agricultural category whereas, remaining land measuring 34 Kanals & 04 Marlas is non cultivable land and does not fall under Agriculture Category, but ownership have been vested to the above named person under Agriculture category, inorder togrant him illegalbenefit whichis ultra vires the Provisionof the J&KStates Land(vestingof ownership tothe occupants) Act, 2001(RoshniAct) Similarly inother files made available the landhas beenvestedillegally incontraventionof the Act regardingwhichverificationisgoingon.
ThecontentsofthesaidFIRarereproducedasunder:
3 of 71 14. Signature/ThumbImpressionof thecomplainant/informant SignatureofOfficer in chargePoliceStation Name: VIDYUT VIKASH Rank: SUPDT.OFPOLICE(ACBJammu) 15. DateandtimeofdispatchtotheCourt:
4 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page1of64 HIGHCOURTOFJAMMUANDKASHMIRATJAMMU CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in from(ThroughPILNo.19/2011VideoConferencingSrinagar) PronouncedReservedon:23.09.2020.on:09.10.2020 Prof.S.K.Bhalla v/sThrough:Mr.S.S.Ahmed,Advocate.(OnvideoconferencingfromofficeatJammu)Mr.AnkurSharma,AdvocateinIANo.48/2014(OnvideoconferencingfromofficeatJammu)Mr.SheikhFarazIqbal,AdvocateinCMNo.4036/2020(OnvideoconferencingfromofficeatJammu)Ms.MeenakshiSalathia,AdvocateinCMNo.4065/2020(OnvideoconferencingfromofficeatJammu) StateofJ&KandothersThrough:Mr.RamanSharma,AdditionalAG(OnvideoconferencingfromofficeatJammu)Mr.S.S.Nanda,Sr.AAG(OnvideoconferencingfromofficeatJammu)Mr.AdarshSharma,Advocatefor
5 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page2of64 at(OnMr.Mr.at(Onrespondentno.14videoconferencingfromofficeJammu)SunilSethi,Sr.AdvocatewithRaviAbrol,AdvocatevideoconferencingfromofficeJammu) CORAM: (OnVideoConferencefromresidenceatSrinagar) JUSTICERAJESHBINDAL,JUDGE(OnVideoConferencefromresidence) ORDER GITAMITTAL,CJIANo.48/2014 25.ThePublicTrustDoctrineprimarilyrestsonthe principlethatcertainresourceslikeairsea,watersandthe forestshavesuchagreatimportancetothepeopleasa ofwholethatitwouldbewhollyunjusttomakethemasubjectprivateownership. Thesaidresourcesbeingagiftof irrespectivenature,theyshouldbemadefreelyavailabletoeveryoneofthestatusinlife.The doctrineenjoinsupon privateoftheGovernmenttoprotecttheresourcesfortheenjoymentthegeneralpublicratherthantopermittheiruseforownershiporcommercialpurposes .Accordingto particularcashpublic;purpose,propertyoften"ThreefollowingProfessorSaxthePublicTrustDoctrineimposestherestrictionsongovernmentalauthority:typesofrestrictionsongovernmentalauthorityarethoughtobeimposedbythepublictrust:first,thesubjecttothetrustmustnotonlybeusedforapublicbutitmustbeheldavailableforusebythegeneralsecond,thepropertymaynotbesold,evenforafairequivalent;andthirdpropertymustbemaintainedintypesofuses".
6 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page3of64 34.Ourlegalsystem-basedonEnglishCommonLawincludesthe jurisprudencpublictrustdoctrineaspartofits runningenjoyment.resourcese.TheStateisthetrusteeofallnaturalwhicharebynaturemeantforpublicuseandPublicatlargeisthebeneficiaryofthesea-shore,waters,airs, forestsandecologicallyfragilelands. cannotnaturalTheStateasatrusteeisunderalegaldutytoprotecttheresources.Theseresourcesmeantforpublicusebeconvertedintoprivateownership . (Ref:(1997)1SCC3880M.C.Mehtav.KamalNath) 01.Theinstantcasemanifeststheactualimplementationoftheageold ,notforthehomeless,thelandless,thelabourer, presentGovernment.theaspiration02.theneed,(includinghighthebeggarorthosewithoutanysourceofincome,butpracticedbythepowerful,theandmighty,therichwhocommittedtrespassonhugetractsofpubliclandforests),andhaveacquiredproprietoryrightsoverthem,notbecauseofbutoutofsheergreed,completelyunconcernedabouttheresultantdamagetonationalandpublicinterest.ItcouldperhapsbesaidthatacquisitionofpropertyisanaturalofeveryhumanbeingbutcertainlynotdishonestacquisitionpremisedoncriminaloffenceoftrespasscommittedonStatelandsheldinpublictrustbytheInfact,theimplementationofthisadage,asismanifestedinthecase,tantamountstoimplementationofa loottoown implementationinvolvementauthority;speakslooterscouldmotivatealegislationtofacilitatetheirnefariousdesign,byitselfabouttheirinsidiousanddeeppenetrationintothecorridorsofpowerandaboutthelevelandscaleoftheirinfluenceatalllevelsandsuggestsofallthosewhomatteredincludinginpropoundingandofthepolicy.
7 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page4of64 be31report13present05.owetheirthethusomissionGovernmentfallenthefiledState04.other)damagecriminal03.WehavenotcomeacrossanysuchlegislativeStateactionlegitimizingactivityatthecostofnationalandpublicinterestwithincalculablelossandtothepublicexchequerandtheenvironment,withoutanyfinancial(orimpactassessment.WhatisevenmoreshockingisthatdespiteacitizenoftheerstwhileofJammuandKashmirraisingthisissuebyvirtueofpublicinterestlitigationnineyearsagoin2011bywayofthepresentPILno.19/2011andanotherinyear2014,theirpleasforjusticetothepeopleofJammuandKashmirhavecompletelyonthedeafearsoftheofficialrespondents.Thebureaucracyandofficialsareenjoyinghugesalariesandbenefitsfortheiractsofandcommissioneachofwhichtantamountstoapenaloffenceandhaveactivelyencouragedusurpationsofpubliclands.Thoseinpower,authorityandrespondentshavecompletelyfailedtodischargetheirconstitutionalfunctions,statutorydutiesandpubliclawobligationstowardsthepublictowhomtheytheirveryexistence.Inthiswritpetitionfiledinpublicinterestnineyearsagoin2011,theapplicationwasfiledbythepetitionerfiveandahalfyearsagoasbackasonthMarch2014submittingthatamulticroreRoshnilandscamunearthedbytheoftheComptrollerandAuditorGeneralofIndia(CAG)fortheendingyearstMarch2013,wasrequiredtobehandedovertotheCBIsothatthemattercouldthoroughlyinvestigatedandappropriateprosecutionsbeeffectedunderthe JammuandKashmirPreventionofCorruptionActandunderSection17ofthe 2001JammuandKashmirStateLand(VestingofOwnershiptotheOccupants)Act tobeundertaken.
8 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page5of64 07.unique06.Inordertounderstandtheaboveprayer,itisnecessarytoconsiderthelegislativeactivityintheerstwhileStateofJammu&Kashmir.On9thofNovember,2001,the JammuandKashmirStateLand (VestingofOwnershiptotheOccupants)Act2001receivedtheassentofthe thisTheGovernorwhichwaspublishedintheGovernmentGazetteon13thNovember,2001.StatementofObjectsandReasonsfortheenactmentshackstheconscienceofCourtand,therefore,isreproducedinextensoasunder: mostoftheStatelandstandsencroacheduponandis variousthenotpresentlybeingutilizedforthepurposeforwhichitwasreservedattimeofregularsettlement.Theselandshaveeithercomeundertypesofconstructionorplantationsincludingorchards.The procedureevictionoftheselandsisverydifficultifnotimpossiblebecauseoftheestablishedunderlaw whereunderanencroacherhastobe givenanopportunityofbeingheardbeforeheisevicted.Moreover,the encroachersareentitledtofileanappeal,review,revisionandthereby the substantialStatewillbeinvolvedinprotractedlitigationandultimatelynoachievementshallbemade inremovingtheencroachments. Theremovalofencroachmenten-blockwillalsoleadtomassunrest. FinanceMinisterproposedthe inhisBudgetSpeech2000whereunderitwas suggestedthatthe unauthorisedlyProprietaryRightsbegiventothepersonsholdingtill1990onpaymentofthecostequivalenttothe (Emphasissupplied) parlance08.Asaresultoftheabove,thesaidenactmentisreferredtoincommonasthe RoshniActWeshallalsosorefertothisenactmenthereafter. 09.OnthetopoftheAct,therespondentssetoutthefollowingasthepreamble:
9 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page6of64 occupantsof StateLandforpurposesofgeneratingfundstofinancePower terms:10.Clause(h)ofSection2oftheActdefinestheStatelandinthefollowing ProvidedincludeprovisionsandincludesanylandwhichhasescheatedtotheGovernmentundertheofanylawforthetimebeinginforceintheStatebutdoesnotanyGovernmentorStatelandmentionedinsection3ofthisAct:thatforpurposesofSection3-AofthisAct,theStatelandshall State11.ByvirtueofSection4(1-A)(ii)thereof,anwhoisinpossessionoflandatthecommencementoftheActmaybeconsideredfor conversionofthe occupancyofthestatelandintofreeholdrightsintheprescribedmanner.Section 8captioned containsanonobstacleclauseandenablesvestingof 12.conditionsallrights,titleandinterestinanyStatelandintheoccupant,subjecttothelaiddowninthelaw.Section8(1)(c)prescribesthattheoccupant paysthepriceasisdetermined Section8(3)reiterates to14.inhad13.therequirementfordepositofthepriceasdeterminedandnotified.Thateventhoughtheenactmentwaspassedintheyear2001,thelegislaturefixedthereservepriceofthelandinanyspecificareaaspertheratesprevailingtheyear1990.Thisenactmentsawamendmentsin2004and2007,eachtimeprogressivelythebenefitoftheoccupant.Forinstance,atthetimeofinitialenactment,under
10 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page7of64 17.authority,vestingoccupantofwas16.workedof2004whichMarch,amendmentlimitedoriginalduringtransfer15.BySection8(b)thetotallandwhichcouldbesovestedwasrestrictedto10kanalsonly.virtueoftheamendmentin2004,thislimitwasincreasedto100kanals.Section5(B)oftheActpassedin2001mandatedthatoccupantsseekingofownershiponlyiftheyhadbeeninactualphysicalpossessionofthelandtheperiod1990tothecommencementoftheactinaparticulararea.TheAct,2001,eventhoughitwasperpetuatingandrecognizingillegalities,thebenefitthereundertolongtermoccupation.Unfortunately,anwaseffectedon27thFebruary,2004,assentedbytheGovernoron19th2004andcameintoforceuponitspublicationintheGovernmentGazette,enabledalloccupantswhowereinactualphysicalpossessionofthelandinrenderedeligibleandagainlateritwasrelaxedto2007.Eachtimethebenefittheamendmentwasgiventopendingapplications.Sodelaysinprocessingtothebenefitoftheoccupants.Sofarasvestingofagriculturallandsintheoccupantsundertheenactmentconcerned,underSection8(A),aprohibitionwasplacedonthechangeofusagelandafteritsvesting.However,undersub-section(2)ofSection8A,anywhowasdesirousofusingagriculturelandforanyotherpurposeafteritswasenabledtodosowithpermissionfromtheCommitteeorotheronpaymentoftheprescribedprice.ItappearsthattheRevenueDepartmentmade J&KStateLand(Vestingof OwnershiptotheOccupants)Rules,2007inpurportedexerciseofpowerunder Section18oftheRoshniActwhichcametobepublishedintheOfficialGazetteas fromSRO64dated5thMay,2007.ItseemsthatnoapprovaloftheseRuleswassoughtthelegislatureandtheywereunauthorizedlypublishedinGovernmentGazette.
11 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page8of64 underwellirrigationtheCommittee19.abouttothe18.byAgaininashockingillegality,theseRuleswereinexcessofthepowersconferredtheStatuteandincontradictionwiththeprohibitionscontainedtherein.ThisisdonedespitethemandateoftheConstitutionandthelawlaiddownbySupremeCourt.Governmentofficialshadthegumptionandabsolutearrogancepublishruleswhichdidnothavetheclearanceofthelegislaturespeaksvolumestheinfluenceofthebeneficiariesthereof.ThepriceforvestingoflandhadtobedeterminedbytheStatutoryinaccordancewithSection12oftheRoshniAct.UnderSection12(2)factorstobeconsideredforpricefixationincludedpotentialvalueoftheland,andtransportfacilitiesavailableandproximitytoroadorurbanareasasasthemarketvalueofthelanddeterminedforthepurposesofthestampdutythe StampAct. provided,scalepenalty.22.kanalwouldprohibition,21.andrebates(dependent20.Asagainstthisstatutoryprescription,therulesprovidefordifferentialpricingonsizeofplot,categoryofoccupants,landenduse)prescribingdifferentoverthelandpricesstatutorilydetermined.Thishasenabledarbitrarinessencouragednepotismintotheprocess.SubSection4ofSection12referstoagricultureland.AsagainstthestatutoryRule13(IV)prescribedthatlandwhichwasunderagriculturaluse,bevestedinanoccupantfreeofcost.However,atokenamountofRs.100/shallbechargedformaintainingproperrevenuerecords.TheRoshniActcontainsnoprovisionforgrantofanyrebate,incentiveorAsagainstthis,Rule14wasincorporatedprovidingascheduleoftimeandforprovidingincentiveandpenaltywherebyrebatesfrom5%to35%wereagainenablingdiscretionandarbitrariness.
12 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page9of64 24.application.applicants23.UndertheRoshniRulesof2007,agriculturelandscouldbetransferredtowhowereinphysicalpossessionforthreeyearsonthedateofNoperiodofoccupationwasprescribedinrespectoftheotherlands.ItistritethattheRulescannotbebeyondstatutoryprovisions.The Jammu andKashmirStateLands(VestingofOwnershiptotheOccupants)Rules,2007, 25.areclearlyultravirestheparentAct.In2018,the Occupants)JammuandKashmirStateLands(VestingofOwnershiptothe(RepealandSavings)Act,2018(GovernmentActNo.XXXIIof2019) extractCourtfarpermissible?could26.actionswasassentedtobytheGovernmenton7thdayofDecember,2018,howeversavingdoneundertheRoshniAct.Thusbyalegislativeact,valuablestatelandheldinpublictrustbytheStatebevestedinpersonswhohavetrespassedthereon.IsthisatalllegallyDoestheConstitutionofIndiaenablesuchalegislativeexercise?SoasStatelandisconcerned,themandateofthelawlaiddownbytheSupremeisabsolutelyclearandtheanswertothequestionisinthenegative.WemaytheobservationsoftheSupremeCourtinthecasereportedat (2011)11SCC 396:JagpalSinghandOrs.,Vs.StateofPunjabandothers,whereintheSupreme theGrambyRohardispossessCourtsetasidetheviewoftheCollector,Patiala,thatitwasnotinpublicinteresttoapersonwhohadunauthorizedlyencroacheduponapondsituatedatJagir,TehsilandDistrictPatiala.TheCollectorhaddirectedthatthecostoftheCourtthattheappellantsweretrespasserswhoillegallyencroachedontothePanchayatlandbyusingmusclepower/moneypowerandincollusionwithofficialsandevenwiththeGramPanchayat.Itwasstatedthatsuchblatant
13 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page10of64 SupremeoccupantsGovernmentinland,illegalitiesmustnotbecondonedandevenifappellantshadbuiltuphousesonthetheymustbeorderedtoremovetheirconstructionsandpossessionofthelandquestionmustbehandedbacktotheGramPanchayat.TheletteroftheofPunjabpermittingregularizationofpossessionoftheunauthorizedwasheldtobenotvalidbeingillegalandwithoutjurisdiction.TheCourthadfinallyobservedasfollows: GovernmentsBeforepartingwiththiscasewegivedirectionstoalltheStateinthecountrythattheyshouldprepareschemesfor evictionofillegal/unauthorizedoccupantsofGramSabha/Gram village.GramPanchayat/Poramboke/ShamlatlandandthesemustberestoredtotheSabha/GramPanchayatforthecommonuseofvillagersoftheForthispurposethe Governments/UnionChiefSecretariesofallStateTerritoriesinIndiaaredirectedtodotheneedful , schemetakingthehelpofotherseniorofficersoftheGovernments.Thesaidshouldprovideforthe speedyevictionofsuchillegaloccupant, CourtAlthoughtime.ofUniontherelabourersleaseRegularizationcondoningthereonofaftergivinghimashowcausenoticeandabriefhearing.Longdurationsuchillegaloccupationorhugeexpenditureinmakingconstructionsorpoliticalconnectionsmustnotbetreatedasajustificationforthisillegalactorforregularizingtheillegalpossession.shouldonlybepermittedinexceptionalcasese.g.wherehasbeengrantedundersomeGovernmentnotificationtolandlessormembersofScheduledCastes/ScheduledTribes,orwhereisalreadyaschool,dispensaryorotherpublicutilityontheland.LetacopyofthisorderbesenttoallChiefSecretariesofallStatesandTerritoriesinIndiawhowillensurestrictandpromptcompliancethisorderandsubmitcompliancereportstothisCourtfromtimetowehavedismissedthisappeal,itshallbelistedbeforethisfromtimetotime(ondatesfixedbyus),sothatwecanmonitor
14 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page11of64 reports3.5.2011implementationofourdirectionsherein.ListagainbeforeusononwhichdateallChiefSecretariesinIndiawillsubmittheir 28.Supremeregard27.above.SeveralauthoritativeandbindingpronouncementshaveemphasizedtheItiswellsettledthatpublicpropertyisheldinpublictrustbytheState.InthisandthemannerinwhichithastobedealtwithhasbeenlaiddownbytheCourtinahostofjudgmentswhichareextractedhereafter.Asbackasin1987inthejudgmentreportedat (1987)2SCC295 SachidanandPandeyv.StateofW.B,theSupremeCourtheldthus: following40.OnaconsiderationoftherelevantcasescitedattheBarthepropositionsmaybetakenaswellestablished: State-ownedor ofpublicownedpropertyisnottobedealtwithattheabsolutediscretiontheexecutive .Certainpreceptsandprincipleshavetobeobserved. Publicinterestistheparamountconsideration.Oneofthemethodsof securingthepublicinterest,whenitisconsiderednecessarytodispose tendersofaproperty,istosellthepropertybypublicauctionorbyinviting There.Thoughthatistheordinaryrule,itisnotaninvariablerule.maybesituationswherethereare compellingreasons discrimination.departurenecessitatingdeparturefromtherulebutthenthereasonsforthemustberationalandshouldnotbesuggestiveof justice.Appearanceofpublicjusticeisasimportantasdoing jobberyNothingshouldbedonewhichgivesanappearanceofbias,ornepotism (Emphasisbyus) 29.Inthepronouncementreportedat(2007)8SCC75Aggarwal&Modi Enterprises(P)Ltd.v.NDMC,itwasheldasfollows:
15 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page12of64 23.Disposalofpublicpropertypartakesthecharacteroftrustand contradictionthereisdistinctdemarcatedapproachfordisposalofpublicpropertyintothedisposalofprivatepropertyi.e.it shouldbefor publicpurposeandinpublicinterest.Invitationforparticipationin publicauctionensurestransparencyanditwouldbefreefrombiasor discriminationandbeyondreproach(Emphasis.byus) 30.Itisimportanttonotethebindingprinciplelaiddownin(2012)3SCC1 CentreforPublicInterestLitigationv.UnionofIndia,whenthecourtobservedas follows: 89.Inconclusion,weholdthattheStateisthelegalownerofthe naturalresourcesasatrusteeofthepeopleandalthoughitis empoweredtodistributethesame,theprocessofdistributionmustbe equalityguidedbytheconstitutionalprinciplesincludingthedoctrineofandlargerpublicgood. (Emphasisbyus) 31.Recentlyinthejudgmentreportedat(2018)6SCC1LokPrahariv.Stateof U.P,theSupremeCourtobservedasfollows: Spectrum,2012,27.InNaturalResourcesAllocation,Inre,SpecialReferenceNo.1of(2012)10SCC1,whileconsideringtheallocationof2-GthisCourtobservedthatas naturalresourcesarepublic justiceandfairnessmustguidetheStateindeterminingtheactual mechanismfordistributionofnaturalresources (Emphasisbyus) the32.WemayusefullyextracttheprincipleslaiddownbytheDivisionBenchofDelhiHighCourtinthepronouncementreportedat (2005)123DLT154
16 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page13of64 Aggarwal&ModiEnterprisesv.NDMC[whichstandsupheldbytheSupreme Courtin(2007)8SCC75],asfollows: arethefollowing: (b)publiccontradiction(a)Thedemarcatedapproachfordisposalofpublicproperty,intothedisposalofprivatepropertyisthatitshouldbeforpurposeandinpublicinterest.Disposalofpublicpropertypartakesthecharacterofatrust. underrecognizedprocesstheor(f)alsopublic(e)discriminationtransparencymaximumauction(d)publicadministrationproperty(c)PublicpurposewouldbeservedonlybygettingbestpriceforsuchsothatlargerrevenuecomingintothecoffersoftheStatecanbeutilizedforbeneficentactivitiestosub-servepurpose,namely,thewelfareState.Forgettingthebestprice,thepublicpropertyshouldbeputtopublicorbyinvitingtenderwithopenparticipationi.e.ensurepublicparticipationandareserveprice.Thisalsoensuresandsuchanauctionwouldbefreefrombiasorandthusbeyondreproach.PrivatenegotiationsshouldalwaysbeavoidedasitcannotwithstandgazeandcastreflectionontheGovernmentoritsofficialandisagainstsocialandpublicinterest.Inexceptionalcases,theauthoritiesmaydepartfrompublicauctiontenderprocessandevendisposeofthepropertyatlowerpricethanmarketpriceorevenforatokenprice.However,resorttothiscanbetakenonlytoachievesomedefinedconstitutionallypublicpurpose,onesuchbeingtoachievethegoalsetoutPart-(Emphasissupplied)
17 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page14of64 judgment33.WemayalsousefullyextracttheobservationsoftheDelhiHighCourtinthereportedat (2016)234DLT409IndianHotelsCo.Ltd.v.NDMCas follows: ouldbetheNewDelhiMunicipal itsprincipleespeciallyourinconsiderationtheCouncil:requiredCouncilGoverningjuristicTheentityCouncilandhavingperpetualsuccessionandcommonseal,thisjuristicwouldhavethepowertoacquire,holdanddisposeofproperty.membersreferredtoastheCouncilunderSection4wouldnotbetheentity.TheywouldbeakintotheBoardofDirectorsortheCouncilofacompany/society.TheChairpersonoftheistheonewhoperformstheministerialactofexecutingthedocumentconcerningtheimmoveablepropertybelongingtothethejuristicentity.ButthiswouldbesubjecttothesanctionofCouncili.e.themembersreferredtounderSection4.Thewouldbetheonewhichwouldbefetchedatafairwhichfindsreferencesub-Section(1)ofSection141ismissinginsub-Section(2),butthatinopinionisirrelevantforthereasonastatutoryauthorityandaMunicipalStatutoryAuthoritywouldbeobligedontheofaTrusttoobtainthebestpricewhilecreatinganyinterestinpropertyinfavourofathirdparty. Itistheinherentrightofevery thatwherein(2012)haspropertyforthepurposeconsiderationtransactions,proprietortosecuremaximumconsiderationforhispropertyinallapartfromtransactionswherethelawlimitsthatcanbechargedbytheproprietor,foranypublicorinpublicinterest.InthecaseofgovernmentalbodieslikeNDMC,theimplicitrightofaproprietortomaximizeconsiderationitspropertyisalsoadutysincethesebodiesownandtransactinafiduciarycapacityforthegeneralpublic.AsimilarviewbeenexpressedbytheSupremeCourtinthedecisionreportedas3SCC1CentreforPublicInterestLitigationv.UnionofIndia,theSupremeCourtheldthatthedoctrineofequalityenjoinsthepublicisadequatelycompensatedforthetransferofnatural
18 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page15of64 suchManconsiderationexercisingresourcesand/ortheirproductstotheprivatedomain.Thus,initsright/dischargingitsdutytosecuremaximumforgrantoflicenceinrelationtopropertybearingNo.1,SinghRoad,NewDelhi,NDMCiswithinitspowertoensurethatmeasuresareadoptedbyitwhichfetchthemaximumrevenue. As fulfilledrepresentsnecessarybemannererrorsuchorsupportsconstructioncannottransactionsNDMCmaximumaconsequenceofNDMC'sproprietaryrightandfiduciarydutytosecureconsiderationforpublicproperty,Section141(2)oftheAct,1994mustbeinterpretedtoincludewithinitsambitallinvolvingimmoveablepropertyandthegrantoflicencesbedehorsSection141(2)oftheNDMCAct,1994.AharmoniousofSection141(1)and141(2)oftheNDMCAct,1994theviewthatitisincumbentontheNDMCtosell,lease,letoutotherwisetransferanyimmoveablepropertyatthevalueatwhichimmovablepropertycouldbesold,leased,letoutorotherwisebeinlegislativedrafting.Section141(1)liststhemodesandtheinwhichtheimmoveablepropertybelongingtotheNDMCmaydisposedoffwhileSection141(2)oftheNDMCAct,1994providestheconditionofsecuringadequatecompensation,whichthefiduciarydutyoftheNDMCtothegeneralpublic,tobewhiledisposingoffthepropertyasperSection141(1)ofthe(Emphasissupplied) 34.Asbackasin1997,thejudgmentreportedat(1997)1SCC388M.C.Mehta v.KamalNathandothers(extractedatthetopofthisjudgment)theSupremeCourt hadauthoritativelylaiddownthelawandheldthus: ofpublicOurlegalsystem-basedonEnglishCommonLaw-includesthetrustdoctrineaspartofitsjurisprudence.TheStateisthetrusteeallnaturalresourceswhicharebynaturemeantforpublicuseand
19 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page16of64 meantiswaters,enjoyment.Publicatlargeisthebeneficiaryofthesea-shore,runningairs,forestsandecologicallyfragilelands.TheStateasatrusteeunderalegaldutytoprotectthenaturalresources.Theseresourcesforpublicusecannotbeconvertedintoprivateownership. 36.definedensuringfairly35.Theabovediscussionwouldshowthatthepublicpropertyhastobedealtwithandthedistributionthereofhastobeequallydoneforapublicpurposemaximumconsideration.Itstreatmenthastobenon-arbitraryonclearlyprinciplesaslaiddownintheauthoritativeandbindingjudgmentsabove.Asbackasin1987in SachinDanandPandey,theSupremeCourthadheld cannotlegal37.beenboundasheldwhichExecutive.thatStateownedpropertyisnottobedealtwithattheabsolutediscretionofthePublicinterestwastheparamountconsideration.Nothingshouldbedonecouldgiveappearanceofbias,jobberyornepotism.IthasrepeatedlybeenthatStateisthelegalownerofthepublicpropertyandholdsnaturalresourcesatrustee.Intheinstantcasewhiledistributingpubliclands,therespondentswerebytheconstitutionalprinciplesofequalityandlargerpublicgoodwhichhavecompletelybypassedbytheprovisionsoftheRoshniAct.TheSupremeCourthasspecificallyheldthattheStateasatrusteeisunderadutytoprotectthenaturalresourcesandtheseresourcesmeantforpublicusebeconvertedintoprivateownership (M.C.Mehta).Ithasalsobeenheldthat theStatenaturalresourcesarepublicgoodsanddoctrineoftrustandfairnessmustguidetheindistributionofsuchresources.AnauditbytheCAGhasrevealedthatoutof agriculturalmajoractualtransferofaround3,48,200kanalsoflandundertheRoshniAct,theportionofover3,40,100kanalshasbeentransferredfreeofcostasland
20 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page17of64 conducted40.underKashmir,thepublicpublicArticleworkedarepublic39.workedtheobject.outoflandsunacceptable.of38.Bytheaforesaidlegislation,therespondentshaveencouragedencroachmentStateandforestlands.TheobjectoftheenactmentiscompletelyillegalandTheenactmenthasbeenworkedtofacilitateillegalvestingofStateinthehandsofpowerfuldespitethemandateofthelandregardingdistributionlargessbytheState.CertainlytheprojectedobjectofsupportinghydelprojectsofthesaleproceedswasonlyinordertogivethesemblanceandproprietytotheIthasservednosuchpurpose.Thelawwasenactedwithoutanyanalysisorevaluationofthecostbenefitorconductinganyimpactassessmentandhasbeeninamalafidemanner.TheRoshniActandtheRulesprescribeamodeofdispossessionofvaluablepropertyinamostarbitrarymannernotknownbylaw.TheActandtheRulesintheteethofbindinglawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourt.Theyhavebeenmostarbitrarilyandunfairlyisincompleteviolationofthemandateof14oftheConstitutionofIndia.Thevestingofseverallakhsofkanalsoflandtoprivateownershiphasresultedinsuchlandnotbeingavailableforprojectsandinfrastructureincludinghospitals,schools,parksetc.Asaresult,rightstohealth,education,agoodenvironmentoftheresidentsofJammu&allofwhichareessentialconcomitantsoftheirrighttolifeguaranteedArticle21oftheConstitutionofIndiaoftheresidentsareviolated.Itappearsthatrespondentsconsideredthemselvesnotboundbylawandthemselvesinthepresentmatterwithutterimpunity.The Jammu& KashmirLand(VestingofOwnershiptotheOccupants)Act,2001,isincomplete byviolationoftheprovisionsoftheConstitutionandthebindingprincipleslaiddowntheSupremeCourtofIndiaandassuchisultravirestotheConstitution,voidab
21 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page18of64 initiofromitsveryinception.Assuch,theveryenactmentoftheJ&KStateLand (VestingofOwnershiptotheOccupants)Act,2001asalsoitsamendmentsand J&KStateLand(VestingofOwnershiptotheOccupants)Rules,2007are completelyunconstitutional,illegal,unjustifiedandvoidabinitio. Factsleadingtothisapplication applicationan41.ThisapplicationwasfiledbyMr.AnkurSharma,Advocateinthispetitionasintervener.TheapprehensionswhichhavebeenexpressedbytheapplicantinthisarearticulatedinParanos.2,4,5and6whichareasfollows: markedevidencingcopysubordinateAuditindifferenttheofandDepartmentthepresstocrorestheunprecedentedGeneral2014with2.ThatrecentlytheComptrollerandAuditorGeneralofIndiacameoutaReportendingMarch,2013whichisalsoReportNo.1oftheyearandstartlingrevelationsweremadebythePrincipalAccountant(Audit)J&KMr.S.C.PandeyonMarch8th2014inanPressConferenceatJammuwhereinhewhileaddressingmediaexposedamassivescamrunningintoseveralthousandsofintheimplementationofJ&KStateLands(VestingofOwnershiptheOccupants)Act,2001alsoknownasRoshniScheme.InthesaidconferenceMr.S.C.PandeylambastedtheseniorfunctionariesofStateGovernmentincludingthoseheadingtheAdministrativeintheCivilSecretariatfortheirindifferent,non-cooperativehostiletreatmenttotheAuditpartieswhileconductingthetestcheckRoshnicasesinsixDistrictsoftheState.DuringthepressconferencePrincipalAccountantGeneral,J&KalsoraisedfingersovertheattitudeadoptedbytheChiefSecretaryoftheStateastheOrganizationhadfinallyapproachedhisofficeforcompellingtheofficerstoprovidetherecordssoughtforduringAudit.AofthepressclippingofDailyExcelsiordated9thMarch,2014theavermentmadehereinaboveisenclosedherewithandasANNEXURE-PriortothisaNationalDailyTheHindu,a
22 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page19of64 4.andlosslandstatedaforementioned3.enclosedirregularitiesdatedreputednewspaperofthecountryalsopublishedastoryinitsissueMarch5th,2014underthecaption'CAGReportobserveshugeinRoshniScheme'.AcopyofthesaidNewsitemisherewithasANNEXURE-BThattheHon'bleCourtmayverykindlyappreciatethatinthepressconferenceMr.S.C.PandeyattheveryoutsetthateverypossibleattemptwasmadetocoverupthebiggesteverscambydenyingvitalinformationfortheAuditandRs.225croretotheEx-chequerwhichcametotheforeinthetestcheckedcasesaccordingto-himthiswasjustatipofaniceberg.Thatbeforeproceedingfurtheritisapttopointoutherethat State hundredlandmeasuring2046436kanals(twentylacsfortysixthousandfourandthirtysixkanals) isundertheillegaloccupationofland LegislatorsmafiainStateofJ&KincludingGovernmentOfficers/Legislators/Ex-andMinistersandthisHon'bleCourton04-09-2013 5.suppliedKanalsdetailsDivisionalpassedanorderintheabovetitledPublicInterestLitigationdirectingCommissionersJammu/Kashmirtodivulgethecompleteoftheillegaloccupantswhohaveencroachedmorethan20lacsofStateLandandthesaidinformationhasalreadybeentothisHon'bleCourtThatintheReportNo.1oftheyear2014whichisjusta tipoftheice bergandreflectsthetestcheckoffewcasesofviolationswithregardto theStateLandssituatedinsixDistrictsnamelyAnantnag,Jammu, Udhampur,Pulwama,SrinagarandBudgamandtheviolations andauthenticonTrustsincludeunduebenefitofhigherrebates,irregulartransferoflandstoetc,irregularmutationoflands,deficientsystemtocheckceilingspermittedlandtransfers,transferoflandswithoutreferencetorevenuerecords,irregulartransferoflandsadjoiningroadshighways,transferoflandstopersonsnotinitsactualphysical
23 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page20of64 6.ANNEXURE-ofagriculturalofpossession,non-evictionofunauthorizedoccupants,non-reconciliationDepartmentalreceiptwithTreasuryAccountsandtransferoflandsfreeofcostagainsttheprovisionsoftheAct.AcopythereportNo.1oftheyear2014isenclosedherewithasThatbeforeproceedingfurtheritisrelevantto reproducethe operativepartoftheaforementionedreportwhichiscaptionedas Exclusionandthesamereadsasunder: crorepayfixedincentives).ratecommitteesi.e.total31.53InstitutionalresidentialthenotAct348160crore(24occupation.crores(Novemberinvestment"TheprincipleobjectiveoftheActwastoraiseresourcesforinpowersectorandtheGovernmenthadestimated2006)resourcemobilizationofaboutRs.25448byselling2064972kanalsstatelandunderunauthorizedHowever,itwasobservedthatonlyRs.76.24crorepercent)reportedlyrealizedagainstademandofRs.317.54raisedbytheendofMarch,2013intheactualtransferofKanalsintheState.Thus,theprincipleobjectiveoftheviz,raisingofresourcesforinvestmentinpowersectorwasachievedthoughthestatehaslostsizeablelands.Ofthis,majorportion(3,40,091Kanals)hasbeencategorizedas.Balanceisuse:6949Kanals,commercialuse:990kanalsanduse:130kanals.In547casescoveringrevenueofpercent(Rs.100.12croreoutofRs.317.54crore)ofthetransfersapprovedinthestateand0.19percentofland666kanalsoutof3,48,160kanalsofland,thestatutoryhadfixedthepriceatRs.325.39croreatanaverageofRs.48.86lakhperkanal(beforeallowingrebatesandAfterallowingthediscountsoverthelandpricebythestatutorycommittees,theapplicantswereaskedtoonlyRs.100.12crore.ThustherewasalossofRs.225.26totheStateExchequer.Further,aftertransferof
24 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page21of64 BackgroundaboutgeneralSinceLegislature,rulesnotifRoshini2013)2013);The20,64,972encroachmentcontinuing3,48,160kanalsundertheAct,newencroachmentsareunabatedasareaofpubliclandsunderwas20,46,436kanalsinMarch,2013asagainstkanalsinNovember,2006.abovepointswerereportedtotheGovernment(July,thegovernmentinitsinterimreplystated(September,thattherewasnodeviationintheimplementationofActandactionwouldbetakenagainsterringofficialsanythingisfoundwrong.ThereplyoftheDepartmentdoesrelatetoauditfindings.TheDepartmentconfirmedthattheframedbytheGovernmentwerenotapprovedbythetherebeingnostatutoryrequirementtothiseffect.therulesmadehavebeenpublishedinGazette,thepublicandthelegislatureinanycasedeemedinformeditsprovisions.Thisper-secannotjustifytheinfirmitiesinfacts seekingconnivanceandlandPrincipalwasnecessary.42.Beforedealingwiththisapplication,fewbackgroundfactsareAwritpetitioninpublicinterestwhichwasregisteredasPILNo.19/201,filedbyProf.S.K.Bhallaon17thAugust2011,anacademicianandthenaoftheGovernmentDegreeCollege,Mendharpointingouttoallegationsofgrabbingleveledagainstinfluentialpeopleincludingpoliceofficers,politiciansbureaucratsoccupyingresponsiblepositionsintheErstwhileJ&KStateinwithlandmafia,makingtheprayerforconstitutionofanSITandappropriatecriminal,disciplinaryandotheractionsagainstthoseguilty.The
25 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page22of64 18-20writpetitionerreferredtothefollowingspecificinstancesoflandgrabbinginParasofthewritpetition: collectivelylandIrrigationTajGirdawaritwotheControlelseKhasraDistrictRajgrabbingThatthepetitioneralsowantstohighlightabrazencaseoflandofproprietarylandoftwobrothersnamelyTilakRajandHemsonsofKaramChandresidentsofChakLaluShahTehsilandJammuwhoselandmeasuring342kanals-4marlascomprisedinNos.1,2,3,3min,33,34and36hasbeenencroachedbynonethanthethreedaughtersofMinisterforPHE,IrrigationandFloodJ&KGovernmentSh.TajMohi-ud-Din.TheRevenuerecordofabovereferredlandfullydemonstratesthatthelandisdulyownedbybrothersTilakRajandHemRajbutatpresenttheKhasrareflectstheillegaloccupationofMs.ShabnamTaj,NausheenandArshiTajdaughtersofTajMohi-Ud-DintheMinisterforPHE,andFloodControlinthepresentdispensation.CopiesoftheRevenueextracts/KhasraGirdawariesofthesaidshowingownershipofHemRajandTilakRajandalsooftheabovereferredMinisterareannexedherewithandmarkedas ANNEXUREenclosesofRevenueadjoiningofownednotthe19.respectively.ThatsinceboththebrothersarepittedagainstthedaughtersofsittingMinisterandaSeniorPCCLeaderassuchtheireffortsdidmaterializetogettheVVIPsencroachersevictedfromtheirdulyproprietarylandreferredhereinabove.ThesaidthreedaughterstheMinisterhaveraisedabigfarmhouseoverthesaidLandandthelandforleadingaluxuriouslifeandvariousreportsoftheAgencycouldnotdeterthemandrightlysoinviewoftheclouttheirfatherwhohappenstobeaCabinetMinister.ThepetitionerherewithacopyofthereportsubmittedbysettlementOfficer,
26 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page23of64 asthreeexplanatoryJammuvidehisNo.SOJ/R/07/1521dated11-10-2007whichisselfandshowstheplightoftheownersandthestrengthofthedaughtersofapowerfulMinister.Acopyofthesaidreportdated11-10-2007isenclosedherewith ANNEXURE-. oneOnethehandicappedtheCabinet20.ThatonefailstounderstandastohowthethreedaughtersofaMinisterhavebeenrecordedintheRevenuerecordasillegalabovereferredlandwhenthesaidlandwasnotalienatedbyitsinviewofthestatusenjoyedbytheillegaloccupantsandinterventionofthiscourtiswarrantedtomeettheendsofjustice.ofthebrothershavealreadyexpiredinthestruggleandtheotherisalsoaseniorcitizenandstrivinghardtoretrievehislandfrom 44.respondents43.On7thSeptember2011,noticewasissuedbythiscourttotheNo.1to5inthematter.On4thSeptember2013thisCourthadrecordedthefollowingorder: Mr.Siddiqui,learnedAAGhasfiledinformationwithregardto inthecourttoday,which isinfourvolumes.Thesameistakenonrecordandacopyofeachof broughtthethevolumesbefurnishedtothelearnedcounselforthepetitionerduringcourseoftheday.Mr.Ahmad,Learnedcounselforthepetitionerhashowevertoournoticethat hugeareaofStatelandisinillegal legislatorsoccupationofthelandmafiawhichiscomprisedofbureaucrats,andothersaspertheallegations. Relianceinthisregardhas
27 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page24of64 beenplacedonareplyfurnishedtoastarredquestiongiveninthe Assemblyi.e.,AQNo.618.AccordingtotheinformationQuestion divulged,heillegaloccupationoflandandthearea,districtwise,has fAnnexure(A)whichisattachedwiththe CMANo.555/2013andsameisasunder:S.No.QuestionReply a) mafiaoccupationunderareaDistrict-wise,theofStateLandillegaloflandandother Stateencroachersinthe astheDistrict-wise,theareaofStateLandunderoccupationofvariousindividualsareunder: DistrictoccupationStatelandunder(inKanals) Anantnag33710 Bandipora46920 Baramulla114135 Budgam43742 KupwaraKulgamGanderbal2454429114 54034 ShopianPulwama40620 13180 Srinagar44294 Doda 177551 Jammu160358 Kathua104746 Kishtwar75159 Poonch129727 Rajouri396018 Ramban167521
28 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page25of64 Reasi 141524 Samba 97133 Udhampur152416 TheAnnexurealsodivulgesinformationwithregardtotheareaofland ,andthedistrict-wisedetailisasunder: S.No.QuestionReply a)District-wise,theareaofLandregularizedunderindicatingtherevenuegeneratedonthisaccount.Thedetailswithregardtodistrict-wisearea fixationoflandapprovedbytheconcernedpricecommitteeareasunder : DistrictTotallandapprovedbythecommittees(inKanals) Anantnag4324 Bandipora Baramulla110024200 Budgam KulgamGanderbal3321809941 Kupwara3139 Pulwama Shopian33111849 Srinagar496 Doda 54212 Jammu44915 Kathua26292 Kishtwar Poonch181856597 Rajouri283444 Ramban UdhampurSambaReasi2499313380858590607 Mr.Ahmed,learnedcounselforthepetitionerhasarguedthat regularizationoflandunderRoshniAct,hasexpiredintheyear2007 andtheinformationdivulgesinanswertothestarredquestionis
29 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page26of64 somewhereintheyear2012-2013.However,vitalpartofthe towhoinformationhasbeenwithheldbynotdivulgingthenamesofthoseareinillegaloccupationofthislandasisevidentfromtheanswerpara-D kanals.grabbedexchequerStateknowi.e.,However,regardingofthestarredquestionwhichsaysthattheexactinformationparticularsofillegaloccupantsofStatelandinvoluminous.thedistrict-firsttableofthisorder.Mr.AhmedhasarguedthatcitizensoftheStateareentitledtotheidentityandthenamesofillegaloccupantsofthelandandwouldalsobeinterestedintheirevictionsothatpublicisnotdeprivedoftherevenueaswellasthevaluablelandbythosepersonswhichasperallegationsisalmost20lacAccordingly, weeksfurthernameswedirectthatcompleteinformationdivulgingofthosebedisclosedtothisCourtsoastotakeaviewforcourseofaction.Needfulshallbedonewithinaperiodoffourwithacopyinadvancetothelearnedcounselforthepetitioner. Copiesofthisorderbefurnishedtothelearnedcounselfortheparties.Listforfurtherconsiderationon30thofSeptember (Emphasissupplied) before47.supportCommissionerrecord46.by45.Duringthependencyofthewritpetition,severalstatusreportshavebeenfiledtherespondents.Mr.S.S.AhmedhasdrawnourattentiontoseveralreportswhichareonofthecaseevenbytheDivisionalCommissionerJammuandDivisionalKashmirregardingtheillegalencroachmentsoftheStatelandswhichtheobservationsmadebyus.Pursuanttotheaboveorder,thefollowingreportshavebeenfiledusbytheDivisionalCommissionerJammuandDivisionalCommissioner
30 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page27of64 downonlaw48.follows:KashmirwhichrunsinseveralvolumesinthisCourtthedetailswhereofareasMr.S.S.AhmedsubmitsthattherespondentshadnojurisdictionintoclosethecaseswhichwererequiredtobereferredtoDoPT.Mr.S.S.AhmedearlieroccasionhadsubmittedthatthiswasdoneinviolationofthelawlaidbytheSupremeCourtinthejudgmentreportedat (2012)3SCC64, SubramanianSwamyv.ManmohanSinghandStationHouseOfficer 2019CBI/ACB/Banglorevs.B.A.Srinivasanandanother,CriminalAppealNo.1837of@SLP(crl.)No.6106of2019 ,decidedon5thDecember2019. S.No.District LetterNo. Dated 01.DistrictRamban 829-3/SQ 29-11-2013 02.DeputyCommissionerDoda980-81/SQ 25-10-2013 16.15.14.13.12.11.10.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.DeputyCommissionerPoonchDCP/SQ/974-7526-10-2013DeputyCommissionerKathuaDCK/SQ/2013-141007-0928-10-2013DeputyCommissionerKishtwarDCK/SQ723/01323-10-2013DeputyCommissionerUdhampurACR14/38/1903-0530-1-2013DeputyCommissionerReasiDC/RSI/13/14/1251-54/SQ01-11-2013DeputyCommissionerSambaDCS/SQ/13-14/80104-11-2013DeputyCommissionerSambaDCS/SQ/13-14/803DeputyCommissionerRajouriSQ/85609-11-2013DistrictBaramullaTehsilPattanNilTehsilAkhnoorOQ/752975322-11-2013NiabatArniaTehsilBishnahTB/OQ/2013-14-57022-11-2013TehsilR.S.PuraNilNilTehsildarJammu2294/OQ23-11-2013TehsildarSettlementJammuNilnil
31 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page28of64 downonlaw49.Mr.S.S.AhmedsubmitsthattherespondentshadnojurisdictionintoclosethecaseswhichwererequiredtobereferredtoDoPT.Mr.S.S.AhmedearlieroccasionhadsubmittedthatthiswasdoneinviolationofthelawlaidbytheSupremeCourtinthejudgmentreportedat (2012)3SCC64, SubramanianSwamyv.ManmohanSinghandStationHouseOfficer 2019CBI/ACB/Banglorevs.B.A.Srinivasanandanother,CriminalAppealNo.1837of@SLP(crl.)No.6106of2019 ,decidedon5thDecember2019. then50.Onthe13thMarch2014,Mr.AnkurSharma,aresidentofKathua,andalawstudent,apartfromfilingofthepresentapplicationalsofiled PILNo. 41/2014titledAnkurSharmavs.StateofJ&Kandors.seekingthefollowing prayers: (2046436)measuringiii)theinitio/nonest/illegalattestedandthenamesii)ConstitutionOccupants)thereunderOwnershipi)DeclaringtheJammuandKashmirStateLands(VestingoftotheOccupants)Act,2001andtherulesframedi.e.TheJ&KStatelands(VestingofOwnershiptotheRules,2007asunconstitutional/illegalbeingultra-virestheofStateofJammuandKashmir.CommandingtherespondentstodisclosebeforethisCourttheoftheillegaloccupants/beneficiarieswhohavebeenconferredbenefitoftheaforementionedActwhichisillegal/unconstitutionalallsuchordersofregularizationsandconsequentialmutationsundertheimpugnedActbedeclaredvoidab-andtheStatelandsoregularizedberetrievedfromsaidillegaloccupants/beneficiariesCommandingtherespondentstoretrievetheStateLandtwentylacsfortysixthousandfourhundredandthirtysixkanalswhichisundertheillegaloccupationoftheland
32 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page29of64 Ownership)Section(ATR)vi)conferment(v)kanals.twentyoccupantstheSRO/Notificationiv)KundalRevenuemafiaandthesaidencroachmentisevidentfromthereplyoftheDepartmenttoaStarredA.QNo.618tabledbyMr.YashPaul(MLA)intheJ&KStateLegislativeAssembly.CommandingtherespondentsnottoissueanyfurtherforextendingthedateforinvitingfreshclaimsunderimpugnedActforconferringownershiprightstotheillegalwithregardtotheleftoverstatelandi.e.Landmeasuringlacsfortysixthousandfourhundredandthirtysix(2046436)CommandingtherespondentsnottoprocessanyfurthercaseforofownershiprightsundertheimpugnedAct/Rules.CommandingtherespondentstofileanActionTakenReportwithregardtotheimplementationofSection8(50(6)and9oftheJammuandKashmirStateLands(VestingoftotheOccupants)Act,2001. court53.orders.occupation52.No.41/2014.51.On4thMarch2020,wedirectedthelistingofPILNo.19/2011withPILInthewritpetition,severalseriousmattersincludingunauthorizedoflargechunkoflandbyencroachershavebeennoticedinseveralWenotethreemajorinstancesofcompleteillegalitiespointedoutonrecord: A)Encroachmentin(784kanals,17marlaoflandinKhasraNo.746)VillageGole,TehsilJammuoflandtransferredtoJDA 54. CMNo.846/2013wasfiledbythepetitionerProf.S.K.Bhallawherein itispointedoutthat784kanals17marlasoflandcoveredbyKhasraNo.746 situatedatVillageGole,TehsilJammuhasbeenencroachedupon.
33 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page30of64 55.Theorderdated18thMarch2014specificallyrecordedthatKhasra No.746comprisedof2235kanals,outofwhich333kanals13marlasstood transferredfromNazoolDepartmenttotheJammuDevelopmentAuthority. andDeputy56.Onthisapplication,on24thApril2014,adirectionwasmadetotheCommissionersofDistrictJammu,Samba,Udhampur,Srinagar,BudgamPulwamatosubmitthecompliancereportwithregardto handingoverthe relevantrecordofthepresentcasetotheDirectorVigilancewhowasenquiring February201461.has60.2759.theCommissionersDistrict58.six57.intothematter.On30thMay2014,thecourtdirectedtheDeputyCommissionersofthedistrictsagaintoensurethattherecordishandedover.On10thJune2014,itwasnotedthatonlyDeputyCommissionersofJammuandSambahadfurnishedtherecordwhereasDeputyofUdhampur,Srinagar,BudgamandPulwamahadnothandedoverrecordtotheVigilance.Thepositionremainedsameon14thJuly2014,5thAugust2014andthAugust2014ThematterofhandingovertherecordsforthereportoftheVigilancenotengagedanyattentionthereafter.Inadditionthereto,therecordsofthecaseshowsthaton13thMay,itwasobservedbythiscourtthatincomplianceoftheorderdated19th2014,theDeputyCommissioner,Kathua,hadsubmittedareport.The land/commonwithDeputyCommissionerwasdirectedtoindicateastowhytheactioninaccordancelawwasnottakenagainstallthosepersonswhohadencroacheduponStateland/Kachharailand .
34 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page31of64 Theneedfulinthisregardhasalsonotbeendonetilldate. 62.Asbackason1stSeptember2014,thiscourthadnotedthereluctance onthepartoftheconcernedauthoritiestotakeactionagainstpersonswhohad encroachedupontheStateland. courttheguardians.breakershurdlesassistofficers63.Theabovecourtproceedingsestablishthereluctanceoftheseseniorandallauthoritiesrevenues,JammuDevelopmentAuthorityetc.totheinquiry,whichreluctanceinfacttantamountstoobstructionandcreatedbytheseauthoritiestopreventdisclosureofthetruth,protectlawandfacilitatemisappropriationofpublicpropertiesofwhichtheywereSuchactsandomissionsoftheseofficialstantamounttocomplicityinillegalactsandcriminaloffences.TheseofficersintheStatehavefloutedorderswithimpunity.B)154KanalsoflandbelongingtotheJammuDevelopmentAuthority(JDA)permittedtobeencroached,constructeduponandconvertedtocommercialuse 64.Letusnoteasecondstartlinginstancewheredespiterevenuerecords (theGirdawari)recordingJDAasowneroftheland,itstandstransferredto privatepersonsundertheRoshniAct. Act(JDA)pointed65.On11thAugust2020,bywayofCMNo.1972/2020,thepetitionerhadthat154kanalsoflandbelongingtotheJammuDevelopmentAuthorityhasbeenregularizedinfavouroftheencroachersundertheshieldofRoshni(repealedin2018).
35 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page32of64 reads66.Wemayusefullyextracttheavermentsmadebytheapplicantwhichasfollows: SRONo.263 dated09-08-2004orderedthetransferofvacantStateLandfalling DevelopmentunderthejurisdictionofJDA&SDAtoJammu/SrinagarAuthorities withimmediateeffectandStateLand ofmeasuring154Kanalsand05MarlasbearingSurveyNo.781wasonesuchchunksoflandtransferredtoJDAvideSRO suprabeing situatedwithinMunicipalLimitsofMunicipalCorporationJammuand assuch LandsclearlyOwnershipwasoutsidetheprovisionsofJ&KStateLands(VestingoftoOccupants)Act,2001asSection3(b)ofthesaidActprovidedthatprovisionsoftheActshallnotapplytosuchState of7.2004theasisheldbyanyGovernmentDepartmentorInstitutionsundercontroloftheGovernment.AcopyofthesaidSRO263dated09-08-isenclosedherewithandmarkedasANNEXURE-II.Thatbeforeproceedingfurther,itisrelevanttoplaceonrecordacopythe KhasraGirdawariofVillageDeelifortheyearKharief2004 wherein recordedmeasuringtheentryofJDAwithregardtoaforementionedStateland154Kanals05MariascomprisedinSurveyNo.781was 8.ANNEXURE-III.,copywhereofisenclosedherewithandmarkedasThatwith aviewtograbaportionoftheaforementionedJDAland, thesaidSh.BansiLaiGuptaon20-12-2006madeanapplicationtothe J&KenclosingMariasconfermentTehsildar(Settlement),Jammuontheprescribedformatforofownershiprightsoflandmeasuring05Kanals02situatedinVillageDeeli,TehsilandDistrictJammuwithoutthemandatorydocumentsasmentionedinSection5(2)ofStateLands(VestingofOwnershiptoOccupants)Act,2001 .A
36 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page33of64 13.XANNEXURE-V.evidencingAmentions,regardingconfermentKhasraBansiappliedpossessiondulypointclaimedmarkedcopyofthesaidapplicationdated20-12-2006isenclosedherewithandasANNEXURE-IV.InthesaidapplicationSh.BansiLaiGuptahispossessionoverthelandinquestionsince1997.ItisapttooutherethatSh.BansiLaiGuptainhisaffidavitdated21-12-2006attestedbyNotaryJammuCityinpara2admittedthatheisinof05Kanals02MariasofStatelandinKhasraNo.781andforcommercialpurposesandinpara3ofthesaidaffidavit,Sh.LaiGuptaadmittedthatentryonhisnamehasbeenenteredinGirdawariwhereasinpointNo.10ofhisapplicationforofownershiprightsdated20-12-2006,Sh.BansiLaiGuptatheextractofGirdawarialongwithShajraofsuchlandclearly"coveredwithplinthandfourwall".copyoftheaffidavitofSh.BansiLaiGuptadated21-12-2006theavermentsmadehereinaboveisenclosedherewithasxxxThatfromtheaforementioned fieldreportsandrevenuerecorditis crystalclearthatthelandinquestionhadbeenrecordedinthenameof JDAinKharief2004andallthefieldreportsmadebyPatwariHalqa, thenshouldinrecordedhadinunequivocallyNaib-Tehsildar,DigianaandTehsildar(Settlement)JammuconfirmedandassertedthatthereisnoGirdawarientrytherevenuerecordsinthenameofSh.BansiLaiGupta,howeverhecoveredthelandwithplinthandfourwall.SincethelandwasdulyJDAlandintherevenuerecordandinviewofbarcontainedSection3(b),thecaseinhandforconfermentofownershiprightshavebeenrejectedatthethresholdonthisscoreonlybytheDistrictCollector,Jammu i.e.respondentNo.17andfurtherthere OwnershipownershipwasanadditionalgroundtorejecttheapplicationforconfermentofrightsunderSection5(2)ofJ&KStateLands(VestingoftoOccupants)Act,2001asthe applicationwasnot despiteaccompaniedwithextractofGirdawariandTatmaShajra,howeverthecategoricreportsoffieldrevenueagency,thecaseofSh.
37 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page34of64 andBansiLaiGuptawasprocessedinunduehastefortheobviousreasons ofcontainedthegirdawariwaycategoricallyPatwari/Girdawar,Gupta.givenJ8&KthemandatoryprovisionsofSection3(b)andSection5(2)oftheStateLands(VestingofOwnershiptoOccupants)Act,2001wereago-byetoconferunduebenefittohighlyinfluentialSh.BansiLaiHereitisrespectfullysubmittedthatintheirfieldreportstheNaib-TehsildarandTehsildarshouldhavestatedaboutthenatureofthelandanditstransfertoJDAbackintheyear2004andshouldhavealsoenclosedtheextractsofshowingentryofJDAwitharecommendationnottoprocesscaseforconfermentofownershiprightsinviewofspecificbarinSection3(b)andSection5(2)ofJ&KStateLands(VestingOwnershiptoOccupants)Act,2001.(Emphasissupplied) submissions,reply68.toapplication.67.Despiterepeatedopportunities,theJDAdidnotfileanyreplytothisOn27thAugust2020,thiscourtwascompelledtogivelastopportunitydoso.Inadishonestefforttocoverupitsillegalities,TheJDAhasfiledadated28thAugust2020(Page-1782oftherecord)whereinthepreliminaryashockingstateofaffairsisstated: PreliminarySubmission:i)xxx a)Thatthelandmeasuring154Kanals05marlasbearingKhasraNo. vide781situatedatDeelihasbeentransferredinfavourofansweringSRONo.263dated09.08.2004 undertheprovisionsofJ&KStateLands b)(VestingofOwnershiptoOccupants)Act,2001.ThatitisapttomentionoverherethatthetotallandofKhasraNo.781Deeliis198kanals15marlasandoutofthislandthelandmeasuring154kanals05marlasonlystoodtransferredinfavourofJDAasmentioned
38 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page35of64 ii)Landsfavourabove.TherestofthelandinthisKhasraNo.hasnotbeentransferredinofJDAvideaforementionedSROundertheprovisionofJ&KState(VestingofOwnershiptoOccupants)Act,2001.Thatapart,the hasaforementioneddemarcationaswellasrevenuepapersofthelandviz.154kanals05marlastransferredinfavourofJDAnotbeencarriedoutasyet. (Emphasisbyus) 70.Khasra.underandJammuAugustorderCommissioner69.castingClearlytheattemptistoprotecttheencroachersontheJ.D.A.landbyacloudoverthedescriptionandlocationoflandtransferredtotheJDA.Sofarastheofficialrespondentsareconcerned,theDivisionalJammuhasfiledthestatusreporton26thAugust2020statingthatintoresolvethematter,theDeputyCommissionerJammuvideorderdated25th2020hasnowconstitutedaCommitteewiththeAdditionalDC(L/O),asaChairpersonandtheDirectorLandManagement,JDA;Tehsildar,JDA;TehsildarJammuSouthasitsmembersfordemarcationoftheJDAlandfallingKhasraNo.781andidentificationoftheencroachersoftheJDAlandinthisThe Communicationdated01-06-2011addressedbytheVC,JDAto theDC,Jammuandan Corruption)orderdated04-12-2019oftheSpecialJudge(AntiJammuamplystatethecorrectposition have71.WehavestrongapprehensionthattheJDAandtheRevenueauthoritiesnowcommencedahugecoverupexercisenow.
39 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page36of64 C)withtoFateoflandmeasuring66436kanalstransferredbytheGovernmenttheJammuDevelopmentAuthority-refusalbytheJDAtocomplycourtordersfordemarcation 72.Athirdinstancehasengagedtheattentionofthiscourt.On12th November2014,itwasnotedbythecourtthatthetotallandtransferredbythe GovernmenttotheJammuDevelopmentAuthorityundervariousorderswas86941 remainingkanals,outofwhichonly19391kanalsand11marlashavebeendemarcated.Thelandmeasuring66436kanalsand01marlaremainedun-demarcated . ItwasobservedthattheRevenueDepartmenthadenteredintosuperficial correspondencewiththeJDAwithregardtotransferofthelandandits 73.demarcation.On12thNovember2014itself,directionswereissuedtotheRevenue DepartmentaswellasJDAtofileastatusreportwithregardtothedemarcationof sixthisbalancelandThisdirectionhasnotbeencompliedwithtilldatedespitepassageofyears 74.officialnon-compliance.Havingseentherecordofthiscase,wearecompelledtostatethatthewasforobviousreasons.ItreflectsthedepthofinvolvementofthemachinerywiththeencroachersOn10thDecember2014,thiswasrecordedbythecourt: hasInthestatusreportfiledbytheDeputyCommissioner,Jammu,itbeenadmittedthatmorethan 40yearshavebeenlapsedafter passingofGovernmentOrderNo,46of1973and10yearshavebeen DepartmentshowlapsedafterpassingofRoshniOrder,butnoreportisforthcomingtothatanydetailedsurveywasconductedeitherbytheRevenueorbytheJDA .Intherevenuerecord,thenameofJDAhas aforesaidresultingbeenenteredinGirdawariRegisterwithoutfollowingdueprocedureinlotofconfusion.Accordingly,adetailedordercoveringtheissueshasbeenpassedandcommitteeshavebeenconstituted
40 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page37of64 annexureR-manner.fordemarcationoflandandtodisposeofallthecasesintimeboundAcopyoforderdated01.12.2014hasbeenplacedonrecordas (Emphasissupplied) 75.wasEvenonthatdate,thecourthadobservedthatthedemarcationprocessintheoffing.Thecourthadalsopassedthefollowingdirectionsonthatdate: directsNeedlesstoobservethatthisCourtbeingtheCustodiaLegis,that BenchothernopetitionorotherlitigationshallbeentertainedbyanyforumandthesameshouldbelistedbeforetheFirstDivision (Emphasisbyus) 78.secureorcourt77.demarcation76.On10thDecember2014,thecourthaddirectedvideographingoftheprocessThematterofdemarcationoftheJDAlandwasagaintakenupbytheon11thApril2017clearingnoticingthelackofanywillonthepartoftheJDAtherevenueauthoritiestocomplywiththedirectionsmadebythecourtortothepublicland.Inthisregard,onthe 19thJuly2017,theViceChairmanoftheJDA andInspectorGeneralofPolice,Jammuweredirectedtofilecompliancefailing directionwhichtheyweretoremainpresentincourt.Itwouldappearthateventhisdidnotmovetherespondents. the79.On4thAugust2017,specificdirectionsweremadefordemarcationtoJDAwhichareasfollows:
41 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page38of64 Thatthe SambaappriseViceChairman,JammuDevelopmentAuthorityshalltheDeputyCommissioner,JammuandDeputyCommissioner, abouttherequirementofmanpoweraswellasshallfurnishthe neededparticularsoftherevenuerecordofthevillages/locationswhicharebyit .Onreceiptoftheaforesaidcommunication,therevenue records AuthorityassoughtforbytheViceChairman,JammuDevelopment ofshallbesuppliedbytherevenuedepartmentwithinaperiodtwoweeksfromthedateofreceiptofsuchcommunication. 2.Onreceiptoftherevenuerecords,theJDAshallensurethatthe landwhichisdemarcatedandisfreefromencroachmentisfenced 4.Court.accomplishdepartmentNeedlesspassedwhopolice3.againstsoastopreventitfromencroachmentinfuture.TheInspectorGeneralofPolice(IGP),JammushallprovideprotectiontotheofficersoftheJammuDevelopmentAuthorityarecarryingoutthedemarcationworkinpursuanceoftheorderbythisCourt.tostatethattheofficersoftheJDAandofficersoftherevenueshallworkincoordinationwitheachorderandtrytotheworkofdemarcationwithinatimelimitfixedbythisAfterfourweeks,theViceChairman,JammuDevelopment toNothingMorethanthreeyearshavepassedsincethepassingofthisorder.hasbeendonebyJDAinthismatter.Thisclearlymanifeststheattemptassistencroachmentandillegaloccupationofthisland. 80.On13thSeptember2017,arusewasputupbytheJammu officialsDevelopmentAuthoritycomplainingoffailureoftherevenuedepartmenttoprovideandpolicedepartmenttoprovidepoliceprotection.The directiontovideo reiteratedgraphthedemarcationprocessbytheJDAtoidentifytheobstructerswas on13thSeptember2017.
42 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page39of64 81.On8thDecember2017,thiscourthaddirectedtheappearanceof, DecemberSamba;amongstothersViceChairman,JammuDevelopmentAuthority;DCsJammu,SSPsJammu,Samba.Thematterwasdirectedtobelistedon26th2017 82..Furtherdirectionsweremadeon30thJanuary2018. demarcationTheseauthoritieshaveremainedunmoved.Thematterofandsecuringthelandshasnotmovedastep . Criminalculpability Jammu)theOrganization)201986.85.registered84.accordance2013underwhich16/2014,the83.On17thDecember2014,thecourthadnotedtheStatusReportfiledbyVigilanceauthoritiesdisclosingregistrationof6FIRsi.e.FIRNos.15/2014,17/2014,18/2014,19/2014and20/2014registeredbyPoliceStationVOJwerependingforlaunchingofprosecutionwiththeVigilanceCommissionRule24(1)oftheJammuandKashmirStateVigilanceCommissionRulesregardingwhichreporthadbeensenttoChiefVigilanceCommissionerinwithVigilanceCommissionRules.Mr.S.S.Ahmed,counselforthepetitionerhadpointedFIRshadbeenonlyin6cases.Furtherstatusreportwascalledfor.Thematterremainedpendingontheseveraldatesthereafter.Mr.S.S.AhmedhaddrawnourattentiontotheReportdated01stApril(Page-985)filedbytheAntiCorruptionBureau(earlierVigilancewhichrefersto17casesonlyinwhich7FIRshadbeenregisteredbyPoliceStationVigilanceOrganizationJammu(nowAntiCorruptionBureau,and10FIRsregisteredbytheVigilanceOrganizationSrinagar(nowAnti
43 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page40of64 87.protectproperty,VigilancemerelyoccupationCorruptionBureau,Srinagar).WhencomparedagainsttheextentoftheillegalandencroachmentofStateland,thatonly17caseswereexaminedand7and10FIRsregisteredinJammuandSrinagarrespectivelybytheOrganisationshowsthecomplicityinthemisappropriationofStateofthoseenjoinedtobringtheculpritstobookandalsoofthoserequiredtoStatelandandtoeffectfacilitaterecoveryofpublicproperty.Thepetitionerpointedoutthat FIRNo.06/2014wasregisteredbythe theGuptaVigilanceOrganizationinrespectofvestingofthelandinfavourofSh.BansiLalandtheinvestigationimplicatedtheseveralhighlevelofficers.Accordingtopetitioner,thesanctionforprosecutionwasnotonlydeclined,but,on 4thJuly 2019,theAntiCorruptionBureaufiledaclosurereportintheCourtoflearned SpecialJudge(AntiCorruption)Jammu 88.ThepetitionerhasmadethefollowingavermentsinCMNo.1972/2020 withregardtothisclosurereport: 21.ThatintheaforementionedfinalreporttheAnti-Corruption Bureauitselfadmittedthattherewas,'Police-BureaucraticPoliticalBusiness-Medianexus'foradoptingtheattitudeof"Shut-Eye"by MohanParkash,(suchwhilebeenreferredconstructedstated,RevenueDepartmentinrespectofKhasraNo.781.TheACBfurther"apieceofstatelandwheretwopolicepicketshadbeen(whichfactwasacknowledgedbythethenDCJammuandtobythethenSSPJammuinhiscommunication)hasnowconvertedintoJammuPlazaandJKResort(illegalbanquethalls)asresidentialhousesofbigwigshavebeenfoundconstructedasSh.RamanBhalla,Sh.SubashChoudhary(benami),Sh.OmEx-MLA,Sh.Choudhary,retiredSP,Sh.MirzaDy.SP,Meakin,AnchorFirmandsoon . xxx
44 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page41of64 23.Thatintheclosurereport,theACBvirtuallyexhibitedits helplessnesstoproceedagainstthe'BigSharks'anddespiteunearthing 26.xANNEXURE-XV.saidalsosameNumberJammuofintereststheGirdawari09-08-2004Deeli,landCommissioner,whereincopy24.highlythecrime,preferredtoadoptasilenceastheaccusedinvolvedwereinfluentialandenjoyingcloutinthecorridorsofpower.Thatbeforeproceedingfurther,itisrelevanttoplaceonrecordaofcommunicationNo.JDA/DLM/HQA/181-89dated01-06-2011thethenVCJDAwroteacommunicationtothethenDeputyJammuwhereintheVCJDAcategoricallymentionedthatunderKhasraNo.781measuring154Kanals05MarlasinVillageJammustandstransferredtoJDAsince2004videSRO263datedandentriesofJDAhavebeenrecordedintheKhasraRegisterindicatingtheJDAland.Itwasfurtherpointedoutinsaidcommunication,thatinspiteofthis,somenon-occupants,vestedareprocessingthefilesundertheRoshiniActforregularizationJDAlandandtheVCJDAfinallyrequestedtheDeputyCommissioner,thatnocasebeconsideredintheabovementionedKhasraandifanyregularizationcaseofanindividualisinprocess,themaybecancelled/withdrawn.AcopyofthiscommunicationwasforwardedtotheDivisionalCommissioner,Jammu.Acopyofthecommunicationdated01-06-2011isenclosedherewithasxxxThatitwason 04-12-2019theLearnedSpecialJudge(Anti Corruption),Jammuinasignificantorderrejectedtheclosurereport andtheoperativepartofthesaidorderreadsasunder:officers/officialswhosoeverwithinabovetoordered"Forwhathasbeenobservedhereinabove,thisfinalreportistobereturnedtotheSSP,ACBJammuwithdirectionsfurtherinvestigateinlightoftheobservationsmadehereinandalsotowidenthescopeofinvestigationforincludingitsambitallencroachmentsbyanybodyandeverybodyunfazedbytheirstatusorposition.TheroleoftheoftheJDAbealsolookedintofortheir
45 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page42of64 afurtherexpectedpenalties.reclaiming/recoveringcommercialwhosharkspreserveJDAthedeliberateactsofomissionsandcommissionstotakechargeoflandimmediatelyafteritwasorderedtobetransferredtobythegovernmentandtakingfurtherstepstoprotectandthesamefromtheon-slotofencroachersandlandandalsotorecommendappropriateactionagainstthosehavealreadyraisedconstructionsofresidentialandnatureoverthelandencroachedforthecoststhereofbyimposingexemplaryGiventhedelaythathasalreadyoccurred,itisthattheprocessiscompletedattheearliestwithoutlossoftimesothatthewholeexercisedoesnotbecomecasualtyduringtheprocessitself . 27.andAcopyofthesaidorderdated04-12-2019isenclosedherewithmarkedasANNEXURE-XVII.Thatwhilereturningtheclosurereportthe SpecialJudge(Anti Corruption)Jammuinparas19and20oftheordercategorically observedthatitwasverywellknowntotheofficers/officialsthatno recordsentryofbeinginoccupationoflandinquestionexistedintherevenuefavouringthebeneficiary whichwasapre-conditionfor questionentertainingtheclaimforregularization.NoAksTatimaofthelandinwasprepared whichwasanotherbasicrequirementandthe possessiononspotwastobeverifiedthere-fromonly.TheDeputy theunequivocallyCommissionernotonlyacceptedthereportsbutalsonotedthattatima-shajrawasattachedtotheapplicationand priceCommissionerprice-determinationcommitteeheadedbytheDivisionalignoredalltheseillegalitiesandwentontodeterminethestraightwayinan arbitrarymannerwithoutassigninganyreason as totohowtheyhadarrivedatandfoundtherateofthelandinquestionbejustandreasonableandthe LearnedSpecialJudge(Anti Corruption)Jammufurthermadethefollowingobservationsinpara20 oftheorderdated04-12-2019:-
46 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page43of64 duringacceptedTherefore,understandinggroundsthethenSingh,sanctionVigilanceAssistantthenbeingtheoflargesse.unisoncommissionsoftheseofficers/officialsthatallofthemactedinforbestowingthelandinquestiontothebeneficiaryasThesestateofaffairs,clearlydemonstratethatabusetheofficialpositionsbytheseofficers/officialsforfavouringbeneficiaryiswritatlarge.ItisbafflingtonoticethatsuchthefactualpositionhowacleanchitwasgiventotheDivisionalCommissionerMr.SudhanshuPandeyandCommissionerMr.RajinderSinghbytheerstwhileOrganization(nowACB).Itisequallydisturbingthatfortheprosecutionoftwomorei.e.HardeshKumarthethenDeputyCommissionerandAnwarSadotra,thePatwariwasdeniedinanopenbidtosavethemthattoobyauthoritywhichwasnotcompetenttodosoonflimsyasifalltheseofficers/officialswerekidshavingnoofwhatwasnaturalfalloutoftheiractions.thisfinalreportforclosureofthecasecannotbebeingagainstthefactsandcircumstancesestablishedthecourseoftheinvestigation." (Emphasissupplied) givingby90.andrespondents89.Byourorderdated18thMarch2020wehadcalledupontheofficialtoinformthisCourtaboutthecaseswhichwereregisteredbytheACBtheactiontakenthereon.On28thJuly2020aStatusReport(page1105to1165)hasbeenfiledMr.RamanSharma,AdditionalAGonbehalfofAntiCorruptionBureauthefollowingstatus:-i)TotalnumberofFIRsregisteredbyit-17ii)Casesinwhichchargesheetfiled-2
47 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page44of64 informing93.sanctionrespondentsprosecution.investigation92.No.76/2016,2016FIR91.v)iv)iii)(FIRNO.34/2014and30/2015)Casesclosed-2Casespendingforreceiptofsanctionforprosecution-3Investigationstayedbycourt-1Mr.RamanSharma,AAGhaspointedoutthattheinvestigationintoNo.16/2014couldnotproceedbecauseofanorderofstaydated18thFebruarypassedbythelearnedSingleJudgeofthiscourtinthecase561-ACr.PCAshokKumarv.StateofJ&K.Wehadobservedthatthesecasesrelatedto2014and2015andwasstillstatedtobeeitherpendingorcasespendingforsanctionofInourorderdated11thAugust2020thisCourthadcalleduponthetodisclosethemannerastohowthematterofrequestbytheACBorforprosecutionhasbeenprocessed.AreporthasbeenfiledbytheGADdated9thSeptember2020thiscourtwithregardtothependingrequestsforprosecutionasfollows:i)WithregardtoFIR18/2014,theACBhasmadearequestforprosecutionbyletterdated15thNovember2018;ii)WithregardtoFIR19/2014arequestforprosecutionwasmadetoACBasbackason8thJanuary2016. processedfactTheprotectionbeingaccordedtolawbreakersisestablishedfromthethatrequestsforsanctiontoprosecutemadein2016and2018havenotbeentilldate .
48 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page45of64 KashmirTheDisparateworkingoftheRoshniActbetweenJammuandProvinces by96.ThehasextentKashmirextent95.regularizedmafiadistrict-wiseSeptemberwas94.Oneextremelyshockingfactisrevealedfromtheinformationwhichdisclosedbytherespondentsandhasbeenrecordedintheorderdated4th2013.ThiscourthasnotedthedisclosurebytherespondentsoftheareaoftheStatelandwhichwereunderillegaloccupationofthelandandotherencroachersintheStateandtheextentofthelandwhichhasbeenundertheRoshniAct.AperusaloftheinformationdisclosedwouldshowthatthoughtheofStatelandwhichwasunderillegaloccupationofpersonsindistrictsintheprovincerunsintothousandsandthousandsofkanals(forinstance,totheof114135kanalsinDistrictBaramulla),howevertheextentoflandwhichbeenregularizedundertheRoshniActisproportionatelyofaverysmallarea.disclosureinrespectofJammuistothecontrary.Itisnecessarytoundertakeacomparisonoftheinformationrevealedtherespondentsprovincewisewhichwetabulatehereafter: KashmirProvince S.No.DistrictStateLandunderOccupation(inKanals)LandregularizedunderRoshniAct(inKanals) 1. Anantnag337104324 2. Bandipora4692011002 3. Baramulla1141354200 4. Budgam437423321 5. Ganderbal24544809 6. Kulgam29114941 7. Kupwara540343139
49 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page46of64 8. Pulwama406203311 9. Shopian131801849 10. Srinagar44294496JammuProvince S.No. DistrictStateLandunderOccupation(inKanals)LandregularizedunderRoshniAct(inKanals) 1. Doda17755154212 2. Jammu16035844915 3. Kathua10474626292 4. Kishtwar7515918185 5. Poonch1297176597 6. Rajouri396018283444 7. Ramban16752124993 8. Reasi14152413380 9. Samba971338585 10. Udhampur15241690607 aspect99.securitypatronagecontinuingencroachment,98.thatencroachersismade97.TherespondentsdonotdiscloseastowhetheranyattemptshavebeentoretrievetheStatelandfromtheencroachersorwhethertheabovedisparitybecausegreatereffortshavebeenmadeandstatelandtakenbackfrominKashmirthaninJammu.TherespondentscertainlydonotcontendanyStatelandhasbeenretrievedfromencroachment.GiventhemannerinwhichtherespondentshaveencouragedwehavenomannerofdoubtthattheencroachersarehappilyinillegaloccupationofvaluableStateland,withtheencouragementandofthosetaskedwiththedutyoofprotectionofpublicpropertyandofpublicinterest.TherespondentshavealsoconcealedfromthisCourttheimportantofthedetailsofStatelandwhichcontinuestobeinillegaloccupationof
50 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page47of64 disclosure(iii)100.personsencroachersinbothKashmirandJammuprovincesaswellastheidentityofthewhoarecontinuingwiththisoccupation.Mr.S.S.Ahmedhasdrawnourattentiontothesubmissionsinpara2ofthereportdated28thJuly2020filedbytheACBwhereinthefollowingismade: 2(iii) caseOwnershipSvt.FIRNo.15/2014standsregisteredinP/SVOJu/s5(2)P/C/Act006r/w120-B,RPCandsection17ofJ&KStateLand(VestingofRightstotheOccupants)Act,2002.Theinvestigationofthewasearlier concludedasprovedandcasereferredtoGADfor accordsanction.However,GADhasdeniedsanctionforprosecution enclosedproducedreceivingclarificationwasfurtherSpecialaccusedorder.&sanctionorderwithrespecttoShriHirdeshKumarSingh(IAS)thenDC,JammuvideNo.18-GAD(Vig)of2016dated27-06-2016andaccordedinrespectofSubashSinghChib,thenNaibTehsildarNagrotaSadiqAhmad,thenPatwariKatalBatal,NagrotavideabovequotedAccordingly,thecasewaschargesheetedagainstrestofthepersons,butthecasewasreturnedbackbyHon'bleCourtofJudgeAnti-Corruption,Jammuvideorderdated12-07-2017forinvestigation.IncompliancetocourtorderfurtherinvestigationcarriedoutandmatterhasbeenagainreferredtoGADforsomevidethisofficecommunicationdated29-04-2020,afterofwhichthechargesheetintheinstantmatterwillbebeforetheHon'bleCourtofCompetentJurisdiction.Thedetails/statusoftheabovementionedcasesintabularformisas Annexure-B.IncompliancetotheCourtdirectionsdate18prosecutionthehas032020,thematterregardingcasespendingforprosecutionsanctionbeentakenupwithGADvidecommunicationdated16-06-2020withrequesttoexpeditetheprocessofaccordofsanctionforlaunchingagainstaccusedpersonsinthosecases.
51 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page48of64 CMNos.4036/2020and4065/2020: Corruption103.maliciously102.respondentGhulamapplicantsfiledapplicant4036/2020101.WemaynotethefactswhichhavebeenbroughtonrecordinIANowhichhasbeenfiledbyMr.SheikhFarazIbqal,AdvocateonbehalfofMohammad.MajnoonMiron10thAugust2020andCMNo.4065/2020byMs.MeenakshiSalathia,Advocatealsoon10thAugust2020,onbehalfofShiekhMohammadAyub,FarooqAhmedRenzu,AliMohdMalik,NabiGanaieandAssadullahBabaseekingimpleadmentasapartyinPILNo.19/2011.TheapplicantinCMNo.4036/2020hassubmittedthathehasbeenimplicatedinFIRNo.19/2014,VOK.ItispointedoutthatVigilanceOrganizationKashmir(NowAntiBureau,Kashmir)wasrequiredtoinvestigateinto FIRNo.19/2014with regardtoinformationregardingmisuseofpositionsbyofficialsofRevenue DepartmentinconferringLandrightsover40kanals10marlasoflandinKhasra No.540minlocatedinVillageKarewa/Damodar,DistrictBudgam.Thesecond was4065/2020104.kanalsinthefarallegationraisedisthatbytheworkingoftheRoshniActthelandwasvestedatalowerratethanthemarketrateprevalentintheyear2007-2008.Theapplicanthasstatedthatinsteadofinvestigatingintothismatter,VOKdiverteditsenquirydishonestlyintooccupancyof4kanalsoflandlocatedKhasraNos.896minand656minwithoutanyinquiry/investigationinto4010marlasoflandfallinginKhasraNo.540min.Ms.MeenakshiSalathia,ld.CounselfortheapplicantsinCMNo.hassubmittedthataggrievedbythemannerinwhichtheinvestigationbeingdivertedbytheVOK,theapplicants(inCMNo.4065/2020)were
52 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page49of64 compelledtofileOWPNo.1810/2014, serioustheinvestigation108.offences.aforesaidVOK107.indishonestlypossession106.favour105.petitioners.lookwhereinanorderdated24thMarch2015waspasseddirectingVOKtointothedocuments(revenuedocuments)whichhadbeenforwardedbytheThesubmissionisthattheresultofthefreshenquiryconductedwasinoftheapplicant.Theapplicant(inIA4036/20)alsoclaimstohaverelinquishedhisoverthelandtotheStateasbackasintheyear2008.ThegrievanceoftheapplicantisthatallthesefactshavebeenconcealedbytheVOKandtheapplicantisbeingmaliciouslyimplicatedFIRNo.19/2014.Weareoftheviewthatifthesubmissionoftheapplicantiscorrect,thehasshieldedthoseguiltyofthedishonestvestingofownershiprightsinthe40kanalsand10marlasoflandandhavecommittedpunishablecriminalSuchactioninwrongfulimplicationandthedivertingoftheinquiry/byitselfispenalandadditionallymustalsobetreatedasabetmentinoffences.ThishastorendertheconcernedofficialsoftheVOKculpableofoffencesinthematter. WhetherprayerforCBIinquirypermissible thewell109.Theabovenarrationshowsthattheentirematterreeksofinactionofasascollusionwiththeculpritsofthelocaltheinvestigatingauthoritiesaswellasrespondents.ApprehensionsbeforeusstandexpressedbyProf.S.K.Bhalla,a
53 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page50of64 113.independentfiled.112.privateencroachmentprimaapproval111.ofapparentduties,refused110.materialconcernedsenioracademician,andMrAnkushSharma,aseniorlawyer,acollusionoftheauthoritieswithlawbreakers.Wehaveprimafaciefoundadequatetosupporttheirapprehensions.Wehavenotedabovethat,whilebyandlarge,therespondentshavetoabidebythelawortodischargetheirlawfulobligationsandstatutoryeveninthecaseswheretheyhaveintervenedandregisteredcasesitisthatifthematterswerepermittedtocontinueinthesamemanner,theendtheinquiriesandinvestigationwouldnotculminateinafairorjustoutcome.ShockingRulesstandpublishedandimplementedevenwithouttheofthelegislaturepointingtowardstheinvolvementatthetop.WehavefaciefoundculpabilityofGovernmentofficialsatthehighestlevelenablingofpubliclandsandpermittingtheirillegalvestinginthehandsofowners.Theirculpabilityhastobeinvestigated.Insomeofthecases,ithasbeencontendedthatchargesheetstandsSo,isitpermissibleforthiscourttodirectinquiryandinvestigationbyanagencywhichwouldcertainlylendcredibilitytotheinvestigation?Thisissueisnot resintegra.TheSupremeCourthasrepeatedlyheld Supreme115.publicbureaucrats,114.CBIthatinanappropriatecase,thecourtisempoweredtohandoverinvestigationtotheevenwhenthechargesheethasbeensubmitted.IntheinstantcasethereareallegationsofMinisters,legislators,highrankingGovernmentandpoliceofficialshavingencroacheduponlandsandhavingcausedorderspassedundertheRoshniActintheirfavour.Inthisregard,wemayusefullyrefertothepronouncementoftheCourtreportedat (2011)13SCC337Dishav.StateofGujaratinthis
54 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page51of64 atregard.Inthiscase,theSupremeCourtconsideredthejudicialprecedentsreported (2011)Union(1996)2SCC199VineetNarainv.UnionofIndia;(1998)8SCC661UnionofofIndia;(2010)2SCC200RubabbuddinSheikhv.StateofGujarat;3SCC758AshokKumarTodiv.KishwarJahan ,andheldasfollows: investigation,havingbiasedwithinvolvedinfluentialagencythecourtcantransferthemattertotheCBIoranyotherspecialonlywhenitissatisfiedthattheaccusedisaverypowerfulandpersonortheStateAuthoritieslikehighpoliceofficialsareintheoffenceandtheinvestigationhasnotbeenproceededinproperdirectionortheinvestigationhadbeenconductedinamanner.Insuchacase,inordertodocompletejusticeandbeliefthatitwouldlendcredibilitytothefinaloutcomeofthesuchdirectionsmaybeissued (Emphasisbyus) Supreme116.Premisedontheaboveobservations,inpara75thejudgmentoftheCourtreportedat (2011)14SCC770StateofPunjabv.DavinderPal SinghBhullar&Or.,theSupremeCourthasheldasfollows: Thus,inviewoftheabove,itisevidentthataconstitutionalcourtcan accused.theexaminingdirecttheCBItoinvestigateintothecaseprovidedthecourtaftertheallegationsinthecomplaintreachesaconclusionthatcomplainantcouldmakeoutprimafacie,acaseagainstthe whetherofisHowever,thepersonagainstwhomtheinvestigationissought,tobeimpleadedasapartyandmustbegivenareasonableopportunitybeingheard.CBIcannotbedirectedtohavearovinginquiryastoapersonwasinvolvedintheallegedunlawfulactivities. The wherecourtcandirectCBIinvestigationonlyinexceptionalcircumstancesthecourtisoftheviewthattheaccusationisagainstaperson
55 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page52of64 orderprejudicewhobyvirtueofhispostcouldinfluencetheinvestigationanditmaythecauseofthecomplainant,anditisnecessarysotodointodocompletejusticeandmaketheinvestigationcredible . (Emphasissupplied) 117.InthejudgmentoftheSupremeCourtreportedat(2010)2SCC200 RubabbuddinSheikhv.StateofGujaratandothers,investigationwasconducted precedences,case.and,couldstage.thenotbeenTheintothekillingofapersonwhowasallegedtohavebeenkilledbyGujaratPolice.investigationstoodconductedbytheGujaratPoliceandevenachargesheethadsubmitted.However,thewritpetitionerapprehendedthattheinvestigationwasfairandimpartialbecausehighofficialsoftheGujaratPolicewereinvolvedincase.ThewritpetitionprayingfortransferofthecasetoCBIwasfiledatthisTheSupremeCourt,firstly,consideredtheissueastowhetherinvestigationbetransferredtoCBIafterfilingofthechargesheetandtrialwasgoingonsecondly,whetherfactsandcircumstancesofthecasewarrantedtransferoftheOnaconsiderationofthematter,theSupremeCourtwhileconsideringseveralheldasfollows: Courtplaced52.InR.S.Sodhivs.StateofU.P.(AIR1994SC38)onwhichreliancewasbythelearnedseniorcounselappearingforthewritpetitioner,thisobserved(SCCpp.144-45,para2):"WehaveperusedtheeventsthathavetakenplacesincetheincidentsbutwearerefrainingfromenteringuponthedetailsthereoflestitmayprejudiceanypartybutwethinkthatsincetheaccusationsaredirectedagainstthelocalpolicepersonnelitwouldbedesirabletoentrusttheinvestigationtoanindependentagencyliketheCentralBureauofInvestigationsothatallconcernedincludingtherelativesofthedeceasedmayfeelassuredthatanindependentagencyislookingintothematterandthatwouldlendthefinaloutcomeoftheinvestigationcredibility. allegationstheHowever,faithfullythelocalpolicemaycarryoutinvestigation,thesamewilllackcredibilitysincetheareagainstthem .Itisonlywiththatinmindthatwe
56 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page53of64 53.investigationThisBureauinteresthavingthoughtitbothadvisableanddesirableaswellasintheofjustice,toentrusttheinvestigationtotheCentralofInvestigation."(emphasissupplied)decisionclearlyhelpsthewritpetitionerforhandingoverthetotheCBIAuthoritiesoranyotherindependentagency.Itisan officialsareadmittedpositioninthepresentcasethattheaccusationsdirectedagainstthelocalpolicepersonnelinwhichHighPoliceoftheStateofGujarathavebeenmadetheaccused theirpolicetoTherefore,itwouldbeproperforthewritpetitioneroreventhepubliccomeforwardtosaythatiftheinvestigationcarriedoutbythepersonneloftheStateofGujaratisdone,thewritpetitionerandfamilymemberswouldbehighlyprejudicedandthe investigation circumstancesdeceasedauthorities,investigationwouldalsonotcometoanendwithproperfindingandifisallowedtobecarriedoutbythelocalpolicewefeelthatallconcernedincludingtherelativesofthemayfeelthatinvestigationwasnotproperandinthatitwouldbefitandproperthatthewritpetitioner and therelativesofthedeceasedshouldbeassuredthatanindependent agencyshouldlookintothematterandthatwouldlendthefinal Ittakenofallegationspoliceoutcomeoftheinvestigationcredibility,however,faithfullythelocalmaycarryouttheinvestigation,particularlywhenthegrosshavebeenmadeagainstthehighpoliceofficialsoftheStateGujaratandforwhichsomehighpoliceofficialshavealreadybeenintocustody.isalsowellknownthat whenpoliceofficialsoftheStatewere investigationwouldinvolvedinthecrimeandinfacttheyareinvestigatingthecase,itbeproperandinterestofjusticewouldbebetterservediftheisdirectedtobecarriedoutbytheCBIAuthorities ,inthat 56.thisIncase.caseCBIauthoritieswouldbeanappropriateauthoritytoinvestigatetheRameshKumarivs.State(NCTDelhi)&Ors.[2006(2)SCC677],CourtatParagraph8observedSCCp.681)"...................Wearealsooftheviewthatsincethereisallegationagainstthepolicepersonnel,theinterestofjusticewouldbebetterservedifthecaseisregisteredandinvestigatedbyanindependentagencylikeCBI."(emphasissupplied)In KashmeriDevivs.DelhiAdministration,(supra),thiscourtheld authoritiesjusticepartisanthatinacasewherethepolicehadnotactedfairlyandinfactactedinmannertoshieldrealculprits,itwouldbeproperandinterestofwillbeservedifsuchinvestigationishandedovertotheCBIoranindependentagencyforproperinvestigationofthe
57 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page54of64 57.tosheetandthemagainstcase.Inthiscase,takingintoconsiderationthegraveallegationsmadethehighpoliceofficialsoftheStateinrespectofwhichsomeofhavealreadybeenincustody,wefeelitproperandappropriateintheinterestofjusticeevenatthisstage,thatis,whenthechargehasalreadybeensubmitted,theinvestigationshallbetransferredtheCBIAuthoritiesforproperandthoroughinvestigationofthecase.InKashmeriDevi(supra),thisCourtalsoobservedasfollows:-"7.Since thoroughtheexercisecourtalreadyaccordingtotherespondentcharge-sheethasbeensubmittedtotheMagistratewedirectthetrialbeforewhomthechargesheethasbeensubmittedtohispowersunderSection173(8)Cr.P.C.todirectCentralBureauofInvestigationforproperandinvestigationofthecase .Onissueofsuch directionthe accordancefurthertheCentralBureauofInvestigationwillinvestigatecaseinanindependentandobjectivemanneranditwillsubmitadditionalchargesheet,ifany,inwithlaw ." 58.InGudalureM.J.Cherian(supra),inthatcasealsothecharge sheetwassubmittedbutinspiteofthat,inviewofthepeculiarfactsof thatcase, Judge,theinvestigationwastransferredfromthefileoftheSessionsMoradabadtoSessionsJudge,Delhi .Inspiteofsuchfactthat thechargesheetwasfiledinthatcase,thisCourtdirectedtheCBIto caseholdfurtherinvestigationinspiteoftheoffencescommitted.InthisatPage400thiscourtobserved: NeverthelessinvestigationCBI.speciallynotthe"7.........................The(para7)investigationhavingbeencompletedbypoliceandthechargesheetsubmittedtothecourt,itisforthiscourtordinarilytoreopentheinvestigationbyentrustingthesametoaspecializedagencylikeWearealsoconsciousthatoflatethedemandforCBIeveninpolicecasesisontheincrease.-inagivensituation, todojusticebetweenthe partiesandtoinstillconfidenceinthepublicmind-itmay case59.agency."onlybecomenecessarytoasktheCBItoinvestigateacrime.ItshowstheefficiencyandtheindependenceoftheInthisconnection,wemayreiteratethedecisionofthisCourtintheof P&HHighCourtBarAssociation(supra)stronglyreliedonby hasofthelearnedseniorcounselappearingforthewritpetitioner.Areferencetheparagraphofthesaiddecisiononwhichreliancecouldbeplacedalreadybeenmadein ParaNo.32fromwhichitwouldbeevident thatinordertodocompletejusticeinthematterandtoinstill
58 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page55of64 confidenceinthepublicmind,thiscourtfeltitnecessarytohave appropriateindependenttocriminaltheaccept60.investigationsthroughthespecializedagencyliketheCBI.Therefore,inviewofourdiscussionsmadehereinabove,itisdifficulttothecontentionsofMr.RohatgilearnedseniorcounselappearingforstateofGujaratthatafterthechargesheetissubmittedinCourtintheproceedingitwasnotopenforthiscourtorevenfortheHighCourtdirectinvestigationofthecasetobehandedovertotheCBIortoanyagency.Therefore,itcansafelybeconcludedthatinancasewhen thesubmitted,independentwasinauthoritiesthecourtfeelsthattheinvestigationbythepoliceisnotintheproperdirectionandinordertodocompletejusticethecaseandasthehighpoliceofficialsareinvolvedinthesaidcrime,italwaysopentothecourttohandovertheinvestigationtotheagencylikeCBI.Itcannotbesaidthatafterthechargesheetisthecourtisnotempowered,inanappropriatecase,tohandoverinvestigationtoanindependentagencylikeCBI. (Emphasissupplied) mattercompleteconfidenceJammuGovernmentincluding118.Giventhenatureofthecrimes,thestatusofthosewhoareinvolvedtheallegationsofinvolvementofMinisters,legislators,bureaucrats,officialsaswellasthelocalpoliceofficialsofUnionTerritoryofandKashmir,itisessentialtodocompletejusticeinthematterandtoensureinthemindsofthepublicthat,inordertoenableafair,properandinvestigation,theCBIshouldberequestedtotakeupandproceedintheinaccordancewithlaw. Conclusions i.TheOccupants)JammuandKashmirStateLand(VestingofOwnershiptotheAct,2001 Constitutionimpactsunconstitutional,asamendedfromtimetotimeiscompletelycontrarytolawandunsustainable.ThelegislationadverselyrightsguaranteedtothepeopleunderArticle14&21oftheofIndia,wasvoidabinitiofromitsveryinceptionandthere
SectionvestingcouldbenolegaldivestingofthelandsfromtheownershipoftheStateandthesamewiththeoccupantsthereunder.Asaresult,thestatementin4ofthe theJammuandKashmirStateLands(VestingofOwnershiptoOccupants)(RepealandSavings)Act,2018, thattheActdoesnoteffect
iii.ultraprovisions,foresttofreeForinstance,amongstothers,Rule13(IV)permitsvestingofagriculturallandofcost;Rule16providesforrewards,rebatesandincentives;Clause(a)thefifthprovisoinRule13enableschangeofuseofevenagriculturalandlandstocommercialusageallofwhicharecontrarytothestatutorycompletelyimpermissibleandillegal.AssuchtheseRulesarevirestheparentenactment.TheRoshniRulesof2007apparentlystandpublishedwithouttheapprovalofthelegislatureandclearlycouldnothavebeenimplemented.AllorderspassedandactiontakenpremisedontheRulesof2007arethereforecompletelyillegalandvoidab-initio.
59 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page56of64
ii.theamendmentsassistanceanythingalreadydoneundertheRoshniActismeaninglessandofnotothebeneficiaries.AllactsdoneundertheActof2001orthereunderareunconstitutionalandvoidabinitio.Section6ofGeneralClausesAct,1897,wouldalsonotaidthebeneficiariestherefore.The
Occupants)JammuandKashmirStateLands(VestingofOwnershiptotheRules,2007 arenotinconsonancewiththestatutoryprovisions.
60 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page57of64 viii.vii.vi.iv.Theactsandomissionsofofficialsandtheencroachers/occupantstantamounttoseriouscriminaloffences,necessitatinginquiry,investigationandcriminalprosecutions.v.TheworkingoftheRoshniAct,2001,waseffectedcompletelyarbitrarily,dishonestlyandillegally.ThereexistglaringinstancesofStatelandsbeingillegallyvestedbyundervaluationoftheland.Inalargenumberofcases,theStatelandsstandvestedwithoutpaymentofanyamountwhichiscompletelyillegalandvoid.Instancesofvestingofprohibitedencroachments(forinstance,thoseonforestlandsoroflandsreflectedasStatelandsintherevenuerecords)abound.ThelargetractsofStatelandsvestedundertheRoshniAct,2001andthoseunderencroachmentmustberetrievedinaccordancewithlaw.Theaboveextractofcourtproceedingsshowsthecontumacious,dishonestandpenalactsoftherespondentsmanifestedfromthereluctancetoplacetherecordsbeforethisCourtandtheVigilanceauthorities;theabsoluterefusaltoretrieveencroachedStatelands,takeactionagainsttheencroachersortoeffectthedemarcationsdespiterepeatedCourtorderssince2011.TheofficialmachineryhasactivelyconnivedwithencroachersofStatelandsforobviousreasonsandconsiderations.Thereissubstanceintheassertionsofthepetitionerandtheapplicantsthatpersonsinposition,powerandthosewithfinancialresourcesincludingbureaucrats,Governmentofficials,minister,legislators,policepersonnel,businesspersonsetc.,haveinfluenced
61 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page58of64 xi.ix.ResponsibilityofthoseheadingthecompletelyillegalvestingofStatelands.ClearlytheconductofthosetheJammuDevelopmentAuthority,theRevenuedepartmentandallresponsiblefortheprotectionoftheStatelandsaswellastheworkingtheRoshniActforalltheseyearsdeservestobeinquired/investigatedinto.hastobefixedandthewrongdoerspunished.Notonlyhaveencroachmentsbeenpermittedbuttheencroachershavebeengivensanctionofbuildingplansandpermissionsforcommercialusethereof.ThisipsofactoestablishesthecomplicityoftheMunicipalCorporationsandlicencingauthoritieswiththeencroachers.x.ThemannerinwhichtheofficialrespondentshaveproceededwithregardtoseriousmatterofencroachmentsoftheStatelands;itsillegalvestingtotheencroachers;permissionstoraiseconstruction;grantoflicencesthereonandsuchlandsputtocommercialusage,requiresimmediateinquiryanddeterminationofculpabilityofthoseinvolvedin,aswellas,ofthosewhohavepermittedsuchtransactions.Appropriatecriminalactioninaccordancewithlawforthesameisrequiredtobeundertakenagainstthosefoundculpable.TheerstwhileVigilanceOrganizationhasmerelyundertakenacosmeticexercisewhichtoopointstowardsshieldingpersonsinauthorityaswellasthoseresponsiblefortheillegalities.Themagnitudeofthescam,theclosureReportdatedApril,2019filedbytheACBandtheGADon9thSeptember2020clearlyshowthatneithertheAntiCorruptionBureaunortheofficial
62 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page59of64 xiii.xii.illegallyofthoseactionrespondentshavethecapacity,abilityorthewilltotakeappropriatelegalforsecuringtheinterestsoftheStateortakingeffectiveactionsagainstwhohaveusurpedthepubliclandwithimpunityintheerstwhileStateJammuandKashmirorretrievingthelandsfromthosewhocontinuetooccupytheStatelandsintheUnionTerritoryofJammu&Kashmir.TheapprehensionsofthepetitionerinPILNo.19/2011andtheapplicantinCMNo.48/2014thatacoverupoftheencroachmentsandillegalvestingsbypublicofficialsandauthoritiesisunderway,arewellfoundedandnohonestenquiryorinvestigationbythelocalagenciesispossible.Therequiredenquirydeservestobescientificallyproceededwithandcloselymonitored.xiv.ByillegalworkingoftheGovernmentfunctionaries,outoftheactualtransferofaround3,48,200kanalsoflandundertheRoshniAct,themajorportionofover3,40,100kanalshasbeentransferredfreeofcostasagriculturalland.xv.ThethreeinstancesplacedbeforeusbythepetitionernarratedasSerialNos.A,B,Careonlynotedasillustrations.Anindepthinquiryofalltransferseffectedbytheworkingofthe RoshniAct,2001(andamendmentsthereto), RoshniRules,2007 xvi.absolutelyandcontinuingencroachmentsofthepubliclandsisimperativeinpublicinterest.Thedamagebytheillegalactsandomissionsinthepresentcasecannotbetermedasmerelosstopublicinterestbuthastobetreatedasashameless
63 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page60of64 xvii.identifiedsacrilegeanddamagetonationalinterest.Theguiltyneedtobeforthwithandproceededagainstinaccordancewithlaw.Thepresentcase,therefore,isafitcaseforenquirybytheCentralBureauofInvestigationwhichisrequiredtogointoallaspectsofthematter. Result website:January,ensure(I)119.Inviewoftheabove,wedirectasfollows:TheCommissioner/SecretarytoGovernmentRevenueDepartment,shallthatfollowinginformationregardingdistrictwiseStatelandsason1st2001,arecompiledandpostedontheofficialwebsiteaswellastheNIC(i)ThedetailsoftheStatelandwhichwasinillegalandunauthorizedoccupationofperson(s)/entitieswithfullidentityofencroachersandparticularsoftheland.(ii)Thedetailsof:(a)theapplicationsreceivedundertheRoshniAct,2001;(b)thevaluationoftheland;(c)theamountspaidbythebeneficiary;(d)theorderspassedundertheRoshniAct;and(e)thepersonsinwhosefavourthevestingwasdoneandalsofurthertransfers,ifany,recognizedandacceptedbytheauthorities.(iii)Completeidentitiesofallinfluentialpersons(includingministers,legislators,bureaucrats,governmentofficials,policeofficers,
64 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page61of64 officersof(VI)proceededand(V)withinby(IV)withininshall(III)alsoencroachingoccupation;Roshnirecord(II)2007whobusinessmenetc.)theirrelativesorpersonsholdingbenamifortheim,havederivedbenefitundertheRoshniAct,2001/RoshniRulesand/oroccupyStatelands.TheDivisionalCommissioners,JammuaswellasKashmir,shallplaceondistrict-wisefulldetailsoftheencroachedStatelandnotcoveredbytheAct,Rules,Scheme(s),order(s)whichcontinuestobeunderillegalthefullidentityandparticularsofthelandandperson(s)/entitiesthesame.TheRevenueSecretaryshallensurethatthisinformationispostedonthewebsiteoftherespondentswithinfourweeks.TheSecretaryRevenue,Govt.oftheUnionTerritoryofJammuandKashmirfurnishtheaboveinformationwithcopiesofthesupportingrecordstotheCBIthedigitizedformat,and,ifrequested,hardcopiesthereofbealsoprovided,fourweeks.Thesameshallbefiledoncourtrecordaswell.Translationofrecords,wheresoeverrequired,shallbeexpeditiouslyensuredtheconcernedDeputyCommissionerfromtheTehsildarsandprovidedtoCBIoneweekoftheneedbeingnoticed/informed.Incase,theabovedirectionsarenotcompliedwith,theSecretaryRevenuetheDivisionalCommissionersofJammuandKashmirshallbeheldliableandagainstforContemptofCourt.ThepresentorderbeplacedbeforetheDirector,CBI,whoshallappointteamsofficersnotbelowtheranksofSuperintendentsofPoliceassistedbyothertoconductanindepthinquiryinthematterswhicharethesubjectmatterof
65 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page62of64 accordanceallinvestigatedbeforeCorruption(X)necessaryin(IX)proceedbeingcomplete(VIII)passedCorruptionreport(VII)wellwiththisorder.Onconclusionoftheinquiry,theCBIshallregistercase(s)inaccordancelawagainsttheperson(s)foundculpable,proceedwiththeinvestigation(s)asasprosecution(s)thereof.TheAntiCorruptionBureaushallplacebeforetheDirector,CBI,theclosureinFIR6/2014filedon4thJuly,2019beforetheSpecialJudge(Anti-Judge,Jammu)aswellasacopyoftheorderdated4thDecember,2019thereonbytheSpecialJudge,Jammu.TheAntiCorruptionBureauoftheUnionTerritoryofJ&Kshallplacerecordsofallmattersregardinglandencroachment/RoshniActorRulesenquiredintoorcasesinvestigatedintobyit,beforetheCBIwhichshallwiththefurtherinquiriesandinvestigationsthereininaccordancewithlaw.InallcasesinwhichchargesheetsstandfiledbytheAntiCorruptionBureautheCourts,theCBIshallconductfurtherandthoroughinvestigation,and,iffileadditionalchargesheetsinthosecases.IncasespendingforaccordofsanctionforprosecutionbeforetheAntiBureauortheCompetentAuthority,therecordsthereofshallbeplacedtheCBIforexamination.ThesecasesshallbethoroughlyfurtherexaminedbytheCBIandthematterforaccordofsanctionofprosecutionagainstpersonsfoundbytheCBIasinvolvedintheoffences,shallbeproceededwith,inwithlaw.
66 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page63of64 (XIII)anyagainstandculpabilityofofillegal(XII)authoritiesofCMB,(XI)TheCBIshallimmediatelyinquireintothethreeinstancesatSerialNos.A,Cabove(paragraphnos.54to82);thematterspointedoutinCMs4036/2020,4065/2020andallinstancesofvestingundertheRoshniActandencroachmentStatelandsbyinfluentialpersonsasaboveinthedetailsprovidedbytheandproceedfurtherinthesecasesinaccordancewithlaw.TheCBIshallalsoinquireintothecontinuedencroachmentsonStatelands;changeofownership/use;grantoflicencesonencroachedStatelands;misusethelandinviolationofthepermitteduser;raisingofillegalconstructions;failuretheauthoritiestotakeactionfortheseillegalities;fixtheresponsibilityandofthepersonswhowereatthehelmofaffairs,whoweredutyboundtoresponsiblefortakingaction;theirfailuretoproceedinaccordancewithlawtheillegalitiesandinsteadhavepermitted/compoundedthesame,asalsootherillegalitywhichisrevealedduringthecourseoftheenquirywheresoever.TheCBIshallspecificallyinquireintothematterofpublicationofthe Roshni Rules,2007 departmentalanyexpeditiouslyauthorities(XIV)sameidentifywithouttheassentofthelegislature.Ifthisisfoundtrue,theCBIshallthepersonsresponsiblewhohaveillegallyanddishonestlypublishedtheandproceedinthematterfortheircriminalliability.ThePrincipalSecretary,Revenue;ViceChairmanJDAandallotherfromwhominformationisrequiredbytheCBIshallefficientlyandfurnishallrecordsandinformationtotheCBI.FailureonthepartofGovernmentauthoritytodososhallrenderthemliableforappropriateactionapartfrominvitingcriminalprosecution.
67 of 71 CMIANo.48/2014&Nos.4036,4065of2020 in PILNo.19/2011 Page64of64 these4036/2020(XIX)beingconstrued(XVIII)requisitenotJammu(XVII)before(XVI)Investigation.topetitioner(XV)WegrantlibertytothepetitionerinPILNo.19/2011andAnkurSharma,theinPILNo.41/2014;theapplicantsinCM4036/2020andCM4065/2020placeallmaterialintheirpowerandpossessionbeforetheCentralBureauofIfcalledupontodoso,theyshallrenderfullassistancetotheCBI.TheCBIshallfileactiontakenreportseveryeightweeksinsealedcoverthiscourtinthiscase.TheChiefSecretaryoftheGovernmentoftheUnionTerritoryof&KashmirshallmonitorthematterandensurethattheinquirybyCBIishamperedinanymanneronaccountofconcealmentofdocuments,records,assistanceorcooperationonthepartoftheofficialmachinery.AnyefforttodelaytheenquirybytheCBIinanymannershouldbeasactiveconnivancebysuchperson(s)withthosewhoseculpabilityisinvestigated.Inviewoftheabovedirections,thepresenceoftheapplicantsinIANos.and4065/2020inthepresentproceedingsiscompletelyunnecessaryandapplicationsaredisposedof.Theseapplicationsaredisposedofintheaboveterms. (RAJESHBINDAL)(GITAMITTAL)JUDGECHIEFJUSTICE Raj09.10.2020JammuKumar
70 of 71
